'Landmines never really stopped an enemy': Vidya Abhayagunawardena. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting primarily one perspective without adequately representing other relevant viewpoints.

The entire piece is structured as a single-person interview with an anti-landmine activist. The arguments of those who opposed a ban (military, some politicians, some southern civilians) are only briefly summarized by the activist and not presented in their own words or with supporting data. Examples: - “We had to convince the military, the government, the political leadership… All of them said, what if another war comes, how can we protect our military bases? So we had an argument with them. We succeeded in convincing everyone.” - “Sri Lanka showed the world that landmines are not a weapon to win a war.” - “No, the mine action programme is not politicised at all. We as campaigners say not to politicise the mine action programme. It is a people's programme.” The article does not include direct input from military officials, government representatives who might disagree, or independent experts who could corroborate or nuance these claims.

3 suggestions

Add quotes or short sections from military or defense officials explaining their past or present rationale for landmine use and their view on the ban, including any remaining concerns about base protection or border security.

Include commentary from an independent humanitarian disarmament expert or academic to contextualize the activist’s claims (e.g., on effectiveness of landmines, casualty data, and implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty).

When summarizing opposing views (e.g., southern civilians worried about future wars), explicitly note that these are paraphrased by the activist and, where possible, provide survey data or direct quotes from people holding those views.

Oversimplification

Reducing complex issues to overly simple, absolute statements that do not reflect nuance or exceptions.

1) On the effectiveness of landmines: - “Sri Lanka showed the world that landmines are not a weapon to win a war.” - “Landmines never really stopped an enemy.” These are categorical statements about military effectiveness based on a few Sri Lankan examples. They ignore broader military debates and contexts where landmines may have delayed or shaped enemy movement, even if they are ultimately harmful and indiscriminate. 2) On politicisation of mine action: - “No, the mine action programme is not politicised at all. We as campaigners say not to politicise the mine action programme. It is a people's programme.” This presents a complex governance and funding area as entirely non-political, without acknowledging potential for local-level disputes, prioritisation debates, or donor-driven agendas. 3) On causes of war and peace: - “So wars are a political game.” This compresses the causes of war into a single factor (politicians’ mentality), overlooking ethnic, economic, historical, and geopolitical dimensions.

3 suggestions

Qualify absolute claims about landmine effectiveness, for example: “In Sri Lanka’s experience, landmines did not prevent major offensives or determine the outcome of the war,” or “Landmines often failed to stop enemy advances and mainly harmed civilians.”

On politicisation, add nuance such as: “The mine action programme is generally seen as less politicised than other schemes, and we campaign to keep it that way, although any large public programme can face political pressures.”

On wars being a ‘political game’, rephrase to: “Political decisions and leadership play a major role in starting and ending wars,” and, if possible, briefly acknowledge other contributing factors (e.g., historical grievances, economic inequalities).

Hasty generalization

Drawing broad, universal conclusions from limited or context-specific examples.

1) From Sri Lankan battlefield examples to a universal claim: - “The Sri Lankan military at the last stage of the war was able to go through all the minefields in the jungle in Mullaitivu where the LTTE planted large amounts of landmines. Similarly, in 2005, the LTTE took over a heavily mined military camp in a matter of few hours… Landmines never really stopped an enemy.” Here, a few cases from one conflict are used to support a sweeping conclusion that landmines never stop enemies anywhere. 2) On global conflicts and politicians: - “So wars are a political game.” This generalizes from the Sri Lankan case to all wars, attributing them mainly to politicians’ mentality without evidence or differentiation.

3 suggestions

Limit conclusions to the Sri Lankan context or clearly mark them as opinion: e.g., “In our context, landmines did not stop major offensives,” or “From my perspective as an activist, landmines rarely determine the outcome of wars.”

When discussing global wars, add qualifiers and, if possible, reference research or examples: “In many cases, political decisions and rivalries are central to war, including in Sri Lanka’s internal conflict,” instead of implying this is the sole or universal cause.

Where strong general statements are made, explicitly signal them as personal views (e.g., “I believe that…” or “In my view…”).

Unsubstantiated claims

Assertions presented without supporting evidence, data, or clear sourcing.

1) On the non-use of cluster munitions: - “There is no evidence at all.” - “But in our demining we have not found any cluster munitions.” - “But I do not think cluster munitions were used in Sri Lanka.” These statements rely on the speaker’s knowledge and demining experience but do not reference official investigations, UN reports, or independent inquiries, despite acknowledging that there were allegations. 2) On politicisation and transparency: - “No, the mine action programme is not politicised at all… It is a people's programme. We have a lot of issues in other schemes and programmes, but the mine action programme is transparent and accountable.” This is a strong positive claim about governance and transparency without citing audits, evaluations, or oversight mechanisms. 3) On public opinion in the south: - “These opinions are mostly from the south.” (regarding fears that treaties will weaken defense in a future war) This suggests a regional pattern of opinion without survey data or other evidence.

3 suggestions

For cluster munitions, add references or clarify the basis: “According to available demining records and reports from [e.g., National Mine Action Centre/UN agencies], no cluster munitions have been found. While some organisations have alleged their use, no conclusive physical evidence has been documented so far.”

On transparency and non-politicisation, mention mechanisms: “The mine action programme is generally regarded as transparent and less politicised, with oversight from [e.g., specific ministries, international partners, or audit reports].”

For regional opinions, soften and clarify: “In my experience, many of the concerns about future wars and treaty commitments come from people in the south,” and, if available, add: “However, there is limited systematic survey data on this.”

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged examples or language to persuade, without equally emphasizing data or balanced analysis.

The article includes several vivid, emotive descriptions of suffering, which are appropriate to the topic but also function as emotional appeals: - “A child losing a leg or eyes—the government has to take care of their education and provide health facilities.” - “There are children among mine victims in affected areas—they should be the priority in assistance. The schools they go to are not equipped to handle disabled students.” - “One elephant lost a leg and was housed in an orphanage.” - “Yes, because if somebody is suffering from a landmine or any other war injuries, it will haunt them their whole life.” These examples highlight real harms but are not accompanied by quantitative data (e.g., number of child victims, disability statistics, cost estimates), which would strengthen the argument factually and reduce reliance on emotional impact alone.

3 suggestions

Complement emotional examples with data: include approximate numbers of landmine victims, proportion of children among victims, and available statistics on disability support or education access.

Clarify when examples are anecdotal: e.g., “For example, one well-known case involved an elephant that lost a leg and was housed in an orphanage,” and, where possible, indicate whether such cases are rare or representative.

Maintain the human dimension but balance it with references to studies, official reports, or UN/NGO data on casualties and long-term impacts.

Confirmation bias / selective use of sources

Highlighting information that supports a pre-existing position while downplaying or omitting information that might complicate it.

The interviewee is a committed disarmament activist, and the article largely reflects information that supports the anti-landmine position: - Emphasis on examples where landmines failed to stop offensives and harmed civilians. - Strong positive assessment of Sri Lanka’s implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty: “Very good. We are very happy; the people of Sri Lanka are benefiting from this now.” - Strong denial of politicisation: “No, the mine action programme is not politicised at all.” There is little exploration of any remaining military concerns, implementation challenges, local grievances about clearance prioritisation, or criticisms of the mine action programme, which might exist but are not mentioned.

3 suggestions

Include questions and answers that address known criticisms or challenges of the mine action programme (e.g., delays in clearance, disputes over land release, or concerns from affected communities) and allow the interviewee to respond.

Add a brief contextual note from the journalist or editor summarizing any documented controversies or debates around mine action in Sri Lanka, with references to independent reports.

Where the interviewee makes very positive or very negative assessments, explicitly frame them as their perspective and, if possible, contrast with other documented views or data.