Clearing the past: Inside Sri Lanka's National Mine Action Centre. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one side’s perspective (here, the official institutional view) without including other relevant viewpoints or independent verification.

The entire piece is an interview with M. M. Nayeemudeen, National Director, NMAC. All evaluative statements about performance, transparency, reputation, and impact come from him: - “This is a very transparent platform. Every donor has access to see the progress.” - “We have a very good system from the grassroots level up to district collectors.” - “The Sri Lanka Mine Action Program has a very good reputation worldwide.” - “Sri Lanka's Mine Action Program is well-known and also well-reputed worldwide. … everybody appreciates the Sri Lanka Mine Action Program, how we work, and how our system is very transparent.” No views from affected communities, independent experts, critical NGOs, or donors are included to confirm or nuance these claims.

3 suggestions

Include comments or data from independent sources (e.g., UN agencies, international NGOs, local civil society, affected residents) that confirm, qualify, or challenge NMAC’s self-assessment of transparency, effectiveness, and reputation.

Add brief references to external evaluations or reports (e.g., GICHD, UN, donor reviews) that provide independent metrics on clearance progress, accident rates, and community satisfaction.

Where the official describes challenges (funding fatigue, environmental constraints), include at least one external perspective on how serious these issues are and whether NMAC’s response is considered adequate.

Appeal to authority

Relying on the status or position of an authority figure or institution as primary support for evaluative claims, rather than providing independent evidence.

Several positive claims about the programme’s quality and reputation rest mainly on the speaker’s authority and anecdotal impressions: - “The Sri Lanka Mine Action Program has a very good reputation worldwide.” - “Everybody appreciated Sri Lanka's Mine Action Program.” - “Sri Lanka's Mine Action Program is well-known and also well-reputed worldwide.” - “Some countries want to come here and study the system and how it really works.” These statements are not accompanied by specific external assessments, rankings, or documented feedback; they rely on the director’s position and personal report of international meetings.

3 suggestions

Replace or supplement broad claims like “very good reputation worldwide” with references to specific external evaluations, awards, or formal commendations (e.g., citations from GICHD reports, UN statements, or donor reviews).

Provide concrete examples: number of study visits by other countries, formal requests for technical assistance, or documented partnerships that demonstrate the claimed reputation.

Qualify the language to make it more factual and less authority-based, e.g., “According to feedback at recent National Directors’ Meetings in Geneva, several state parties expressed interest in studying Sri Lanka’s database and coordination system.”

Unsubstantiated claims

Statements presented as fact without supporting data, examples, or references, especially when they are evaluative or broad in scope.

A few statements are broad and positive but not backed by evidence in the text: - “This is a very transparent platform. Every donor has access to see the progress.” (about IMSMA) - “We have a very good system from the grassroots level up to district collectors.” - “Risk education … is giving very good results.” - “The Sri Lanka Mine Action Program has a very good reputation worldwide.” - “Sri Lanka's Mine Action Program is well-known and also well-reputed worldwide.” These are plausible but not supported with metrics (e.g., accident reduction, user statistics, independent transparency ratings, or survey results).

3 suggestions

For transparency claims, add specific evidence: for example, describe what data donors can see in IMSMA, how often it is updated, and whether any independent audits have confirmed its reliability.

For “very good system” and “very good results,” include quantitative indicators (e.g., reduction in mine/ERW accidents over time, number of people reached by risk education, clearance productivity, or community satisfaction survey results).

Qualify broad evaluative statements with more neutral wording if data are not available, e.g., “NMAC considers the current system effective, and no major quality issues have been reported by district officials in the last X years.”

Oversimplification

Presenting complex issues in a way that glosses over important nuances, trade-offs, or uncertainties.

Some complex topics are described in very simple, uniformly positive terms: - On political context: “When it comes to political matters, there is total coordination and the blessing of the government.” This suggests an absence of political challenges without acknowledging any potential disagreements, delays, or policy debates that typically accompany large national programmes. - On safety and standards: “We never compromise on standards, especially international standards, for any type of pressure. 'Safety first' is our motto.” This presents an absolute claim that may not reflect real-world constraints or incidents. - On future benefits: “Even internationally, when we announce that Sri Lanka is mine-free, it will give a very good reputation to the country, and even the tourism sector will get a boost…” This implies a straightforward positive impact without discussing possible limitations or the need for additional measures.

3 suggestions

Acknowledge that while political support is currently strong, there can be administrative or policy challenges, and briefly note how these are managed (e.g., delays in approvals, competing budget priorities).

Rephrase absolute safety claims to reflect realistic practice, e.g., “We adhere to international standards and do not intentionally compromise them, even under pressure. When issues are identified, we investigate and adjust procedures.”

For projected benefits like tourism and reputation, frame them as expectations or possibilities and, if available, reference comparative examples from other mine-affected countries that saw similar outcomes.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged examples or imagery to elicit a positive emotional response toward a programme or policy.

The answer about what it would mean to be mine-free includes emotionally resonant imagery: - “First of all, peace and a peaceful mind. This is very important because recently I visited some minefields. On the border, I saw houses and children playing. This is really risky when there is a minefield nearby. When we clear these areas, the fear will go, and people will have peace of mind.” - “It is going to remove the legacy of war. Even internationally, when we announce that Sri Lanka is mine-free, it will give a very good reputation to the country, and even the tourism sector will get a boost…” These statements are understandable in a personal-view question and not extreme, but they do rely on emotional framing (children at risk, peace of mind, legacy of war) to underscore the programme’s value.

3 suggestions

Balance the emotional example with data on accident trends, number of communities declared safe, or survey results on perceived safety before and after clearance.

Clarify that this is a personal reflection, which the question already invites, and keep the emotional content clearly separated from factual claims about programme performance.

If retaining the anecdote, add a neutral follow-up sentence such as: “According to NMAC data, X communities in similar situations have been declared mine-free in the last Y years.”