If you are referring to my post on 12 June, I did not intend to “goad” anyone as I assumed that you were not even reading this thread at that point.

But it did ultimately produce a response from you, didn’t it (albeit a less-than-enlightening response)? 😉

Ever hear the story about the lifeguard who would throw flotation devices to someone drowning, but would neglect to hold the rope on the other end because he was running off to save other drowning people?

“will you not consider that the overriding issue here is that because access to these areas were so restricted, transparency and communication was at such a minimum”

For many Sri Lankans, the “overriding issue” is not the restricted access but rather why you are so concerned about something that your own governments already do.

‘How else should I respond when I am rather arrogantly told, “What is obvious to me is that your information will inevitably be one sided and unbalanced,”’

Well, you weren’t responding to that at all. I believe the quote above appeared after you began goading.

I would much rather bring things back to the pressing discussion; will you not consider that the overriding issue here is that because access to these areas were so restricted, transparency and communication was at such a minimum that it exacerbated concerns at a time when it was most important to define and clarify at all levels. In my belief it bred a climate where misinformation ran unchecked and propaganda was presented as fact. Narratives diverged and the truth was lost among the din of triumphalism at home and talk of revenge among some quarters abroad. These things could have been avoided if critical thinking was allowed to penetrate discourse – as it happened, it was subdued by forces at the time and the run up to the war and is now dismissed as an irrelevance.

To confound it all we are still talking about some international conspiracy that hedge those that otherwise might have been open to constructive engagement against any kind of international/diaspora co-operation. Your own views on this subject would be greatly valued here since it seems like you might be an example of what we are up against.

Guy

How else should I respond when I am rather arrogantly told, “What is obvious to me is that your information will inevitably be one sided and unbalanced,” after I cited a very respected human rights organization in SL on the gross negligence of Norway and the SLMM?

“Buddy, you are talking to a couple of people from London who have spent the last 12 months making a documentary on Sri Lanka”

Buddy, if the SLMM told me that they were angels of peace because they spent over six years in the island, what do you think my answer to that would be?

As my above-mentioned (Tamil) friend said, the SLMM should have fired that individual on the spot for making such an extremely irresponsible statement- one of many made by various SLMM officials that contributed to the end of the ceasefire. As it was, that particular statement was entirely in line with the SLMM’s agenda, so of course no action would be taken.

I’m sorry I have been very busy and will be away for the next months working on another project wihout any internet connection so I apologise in advance for not being able to respond to you.

Unfortunatley it is very hard for me to comment on Norways role as I don’t have much knowledge of what actually went on there. What is obvious to me is that your information will inevitably be one sided and unbalanced but no, I cannot know what actually happened and neither can you.

The article you claim to show ‘Finland’s failings’ as part of the SLMM demonstrates nothing except the fact that one man said something that was perceived to be a poor choice in words and I agree it might not have been very professional and said with much foresight as to how his words would be percieved – but that is a matter of perception. This happens. However, I don’t think this was a blanket statement or that he had meant what you claim – but that is the way you have read into it. It was a statement, but by no means in my mind was he trying to justify anything. There was no ‘green-light’ and I think it would be false to even presume that given the context is unknown. But again, its all in how you read into it.

Perhaps this is yet another example of where wider access to the conflict zones might have helped clarify things.

Heidi

Heidi has been busy with our next project in Uganda at the minute sorting out intricacies. Please don’t take it personally as her assurances are not disingenuous. But what is with the goading? I hardly think it is fair to use her to vent your own frustrations of the SLMM. So please desist.

The wider discussion I alluded to earlier is exactly this. A discussion, a discourse and a debate on issues that are relevant to the topics raised in our film. To promote a discussion between those of us who would like to contribute positively. But that does count on you listening as well as taking your turn to vent if that is what you wish to do.

I as well as Heidi have repeatedly stated that we do not represent the SLMM, the West or have any affiliations with any organizations that you feel have had destructive influences within Sri Lanka. I personally find it incredibly disheartening that someone like yourself who I would think may have quite a constructive take on these things cannot rise above the pettiness as evidenced in your posts.

Wijayapala, listen. I apologize myself for taking a while to reply. But at least I and Heidi are trying to fit this in and will do as long as we can, I personally assure you of that. We do run a company however and we do have other projects like our documentary on former child soldiers in Uganda. This is a worthy distraction from this threadboard I’m sure you’d agree but this stuff does take a lot of our time. So please be patient with us and we will – as evidenced here – with you.

But again, there absolutely is no need for goading.

“Obviously I was not talking about you. I was talking about the majority of the Sri Lankan diaspora.”

With the above you seem to concede that you might be in error by generalizing and have shown that you are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt, so again why not Heidi?

You asked why you should care what the Diaspora thinks. You don’t have to care about what anybody ever thinks Wijayapala. You certainly don’t have to care what I think, but that doesn’t stop me expressing my opinion or respecting yours.

Finally,

“The key indication of anybody’s good intentions is *commitment*. Conversely, without commitment any professed intent of good will is meaningless.”

Buddy, you are talking to a couple of people from London who have spent the last 12 months making a documentary on Sri Lanka without funding, stuck with it, turned down other work and are still here talking to you about it. There is nothing to question here.

I get that you are impatient but commitment is impossible without a modicum of patience.

Guy