We have to find our own way.

As for the GoSL, it all depends. It could go either way. It’s not unlikely that we could slide gradually towards a dictatorial regime. I think a lot depends on the international community.

Do you think the Govt will foster a spirit of magnanimity, transparency and reconciliation at some point in the future? I’m no historian – how long did it take the SA Govt to move from a post-war-mentality to reconciliatory sentiment after the fall of Apartheid?

But Morten too has a point – what is so wrong in asking the Govt to be more transparent? Their refusal implies guilt. In which case the ethnic issue will never be truly solved.

Much like post-apartheid South Africa, if the Govt really wants to address the issues at hand, there must be a spirit of reconciliation – in which both sides put their hands up, accept the mistakes they’ve made, and answer for them, in an open and independent forum. Only this will convince the Tamil people both here and abroad that Sri Lanka wants to move forward and be a new united nation.

The West is wrong in their timing but right in their sentiment – the Govt needs to be magnanimous instead of defensive.

But Morten too has a point – what is so wrong in asking the Govt to be more transparent? Their refusal implies guilt. In which case the ethnic issue will never be truly solved.

Much like post-apartheid South Africa, if the Govt really wants to address the issues at hand, there must be a spirit of reconciliation – in which both sides put their hands up, accept the mistakes they’ve made, and answer for them, in an open and independent forum. Only this will convince the Tamil people both here and abroad that Sri Lanka wants to move forward and be a new united nation.

The West is wrong in their timing but right in their sentiment – the Govt needs to be magnanimous instead of defensive.

However, your inability to understand even simple ideas IS probably representative of the western media. I’m sure you’re miffed that you came all the way over here and don’t have anything to shoot. Sad. Stick around if you’ve got the time. If not, I’m sure there are lots of free and open places for war tourism.

Now that you’ve shown us your zoom lens, perhaps we can some intelligence too.

This year’s winners are next year’s losers. That’s one of the problems of democracy. Slobodan Milosevic was triumphantly confident that with popular and Russian support no one would ever be able to touch him.

This is not 1945. You can’t hide Dresden or D-Day for very long. This is 2009. Even if you keep the conspiracy of relief organisations and media physically away from events, there will be some transparency, and unlike what is reported by the likes of me, it will come from big, biased international powers like the United States. Unlike my mates and I, the US and it’s allies will first choose sides, then present whatever “evidence” suits their versions. WMDs, anyone?

“shut the fuck up and leave us alone” is your idea of criticism? And you’re telling me to grow up?

You’re right about two things though:

Intelligence and zoom lenses really aren’t interchangeable. In my job you need both.

And yes, you do need help.

No, it’s not. It’s ours. And we need help sorting it out. So if you’re here to help, get on with it. Save the speeches for later.

And if you can’t take criticism (or abuse, as you prefer to call it), think twice before dishing it out. Perhaps I do need to get out more. But perhaps you need to grow up too. Intelligence and zoom lenses aren’t always interchangeable.

I’m all for investigations into human rights abuses, disproportionate killing of civilians, etc…but let’s also investigate the use of WMDs by the US, abuses in Vietnam by the French and the Americans, the Australian ‘stolen generations,’ George Bush and Tony Blair starting a war in Iraq on fabricated evidence, etc, etc…you know in the name of the ‘justness’ that seems to be the prerogative of the ‘white man’.

Morten -

Firstly, I think your railing against the wrong people. As someone who’s followed Indi and Blacker’s blogs for years, I know these folks more of less agree with you regarding transparency and have been critical of the short comings of this current Sri Lankan administration. The tone in which you address this blog was very combative and the replies you’ve got reflect that.

Secondly in response to what you have written – transparency is a fantastic ideal but reality is different. You must, as journalist, understand that you are one of many conflicting forces with competing agendas in this quest and inevitably it is impossible to actually receive an unadulterated view on any issue. In the context of the American led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan you will find that the country which for so long has been the role model for transparency failed miserably. People talk about the Sri Lankan theater of war being closed of to journalists but it was no more or less than Iraq in its most explosive state. Virtually all information came from embedded reporters, the military and the white house press secretary. Only towards the end of the Bush regime and the current Obama administration are we really starting to get a clear picture of the abuses, alleged or otherwise.

My point is that Sri Lanka, as you put it, is insignificant. How can the west which sees this island and its people as such, project its lofty humanitarian ideals upon it when its most significant parties refuse accept the same responsibilities? Moreover, prominent figures from western politicians and media personalities have called on Sri Lankan’s not to engage in ‘triumphalism’ – so is it so wrong that insignificant Sri Lankan politicians, journalists and bloggers too ask these same people not to engage in hypocrisy and vindictiveness? I’m not saying that Sri Lanka hasn’t committed acts which may constitute violation of humanitarian law, such as it is, but now is the time to engage Sri Lanka. Its not a rogue state, flawed though it is, but heavy handedness on the part of the west will have ramification which will be not in the spirit of the values it seeks to champion.

In all honesty however – I don’t see any major issues coming from motion set in UN Human Rights Committee for the Security Council. You quite rightly point out the case of Cino-Sudanese relations but Sri Lanka is a much better position to argue against any war crimes case presented than Sudan because evidence is far more subjective and less substantive. Similarly, a issue of a state’s rights to act against non-actor internally is a far more hot button issue for countries like China, Russia, Pakistan and even India, than the need to procure cheap oil and sell weapons. In my eyes and indeed the eyes of many from the ‘new’ world – the ICC is the west in drag. Sure there’s lipstick, fake nails, heels and a cocktail dress, but the ‘bits’ that matter are all the same.

I’ll start arranging your parade immediately. Whether I’ve been to Iraq or Afghanistan is neither here nor there, all I was commenting on was your contention that we are aware of US and UK abuses because of some notion of transparency in the Qest is a bit rich. As I pointed out the stories on the Abu Gharib prisoner abuse scandal only broke because it was leaked and spare me the bit about embedded journos of not following the “party” line. The threat they reported under was no where near the threat faced by their Asian counterparts but what they risked losing was access. Viewing any of those farcical war reports on CNN or NBC made it abundantly clear that it was far from ‘fair and balanced’

If ethics and morals are alien concepts to the west, then by God, at least be effective.

I wanted to avoid being personal, Morten, though you yourself don’t seem to have those qualms, but your war tourism pix hardly show anything really groundbreaking in Iraq or anywhere else. Yeah, why would the US restrict you? Those pix could have been shot by the US Army.

For all your antagonistic and patronizing words your not really making any clear comment regarding Indi’s blog or his reply (Blackers either for that matter).

Sri Lanka knows its insignificance to the pasty white west but even sill it isn’t begging. The message is clear: if you want to be a stakeholder in the future of our country for whatever purpose you have (moral, strategic, electoral, capital), don’t force us at gun point. The country and its people have been in a state of paralysis for too long, do you really want to punish them further? Ultimately that’s what sanctions and other measures that increase civilian suffering do and the result is that it pushes people further into embrace of the state on whom they will depend on more heavily than before.

If the West wants to be the arbitrator of justice in the world then it really needs to stop screaming ‘do as I say, not as I do’. How can a small, third world democracy which has been crippled economically and socially through 30 years of terror be consider to have equal moral obligation as rich Western super-powers and their affluent populaces with strictly theoretical notions of suffering? Before you take Sri Lanka to task, shouldn’t they first turn the microscope on their own conduct and set a shining example for the world to follow? That would be transparency.

How can the UN be taken seriously when the leaders of the “free world” spent the last decade undermining it? How can Sri Lanka be investigated at all when its not a signatory to the majority of treaties pertaining to rules of engagement and how can it be put on the security council agenda when the tone of this inquiry divides the old world from the new one?