Prime Minister's vocal support for Coalition

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001693

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS
NSC FOR E. MILLARD
DEPARTMENT PLEASE ALSO PASS TOPEC

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09-30-03
TAGS: PGOV PREL KPAO CE IZ UN
SUBJECT: Prime Minister's vocal support for Coalition
intervention in Iraq nets small backlash at home

Refs: (A) SA/INS - Colombo 09/29/03 class e-mail
- (B) Colombo 1688, and previous

(U) Classified by James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of
Mission. Reasons 1.5 (b, d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: Prime Minister Wickremesinghe's
remarks supporting Coalition actions in Iraq during his
recent UNGA address have netted a small backlash, with
several newspapers criticizing the PM's stand as being
too pro-U.S. In discussions, observers had a mixed
reaction as to whether the PM would pay a political
price at home for his views. At this point, despite the
flak, there is every sign that PM Wickremesinghe will
continue to steer GSL foreign policy in a direction
friendly to the U.S. END SUMMARY.

--------------
PM's Statement on Iraq
--------------


2. (SBU) Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe's comments
supporting Coalition actions in Iraq during his
September 26 address at the UN General Assembly have
sparked a small backlash at home. The speech, which
focused mainly on Sri Lanka's peace process and UN
structural reforms, included the following reference to
Iraq:

"There are members in this hall today who believe
passionately that the United States and their allies
were wrong to intervene in Iraq. Then there are those
of us who feel that the United States and their allies
had no choice but to intervene, that the failure of the
UN had created the need for a world policeman however
reluctant it might be. But Iraq is more than a
divergence of views on a major issue. It shows the
inadequacies of the present collective security system.
A decision-making system which grappled with the issue
of Iraq for over a decade without solution and created a
deadlock at a most critical time."

--------------
A Small Backlash
--------------


3. (SBU) The Sri Lankan press initially covered the
PM's speech as a straightforward news story, but there
were soon rumblings that his comments had gone too far
in a pro-U.S. direction. The following two passages
from recent editorials are a sampling of this negative
reaction:

-- In its September 28 edition, the SUNDAY TIMES, an
independent English language weekly, characterized the
PM's stance re Iraq as "bold and brazen," and questioned
"...will this government also attract unwarranted
attention as a lackey-state running after the pot of
gold represented by U.S. largesse in the short term, at
the expense of her self-respect and international
solidarity for a better world in the long term?"

-- In its September 29 edition, THE ISLAND, an
independent opposition daily, in an editorial headlined
"Sri Lanka as a hireling," stated "...Prime Minister
Ranil Wickremesinghe in his address to the UN General
Assembly on Friday, kicked, well and truly into our own
goal by subscribing to the much disputed view that the
U.S.-led allies had to invade Iraq faute de mieux. He
didn't stop at that. He sought to justify the emergence
of a global policeman by blaming it on what he perceived
as failure of the UN. The statement was highly uncalled
for in that other countries like France and Germany have
their reservations about the matter. Why should Sri
Lanka commit herself to someone else's war?"


4. (U) Late September 29, the radical Janatha Vimukthi
Peramuna (JVP) party issued a statement criticizing the
PM's remarks regarding Iraq.

--------------
Political Soundings
--------------


5. (C) In discussions with emboffs, observers had mixed
reactions as to whether Prime Minister Wickremesinghe
would pay a political price at home for his views.
Reaction included:

-- Jehan Perera, an analyst at the National Peace
Council, a local think-tank, told polchief September 30
that he thought the PM would pay a "stiff" political
price for his pro-U.S. stance. The Prime Minister, he
asserted, had "crossed the line" and become too close to
the U.S. Sri Lankans, especially left-wing and Muslim
elements, would notice the PM's positioning and react in
a highly negative way. Perera said he could not
understand why the PM had taken such a friendly view of
U.S. intervention in Iraq at UNGA when his government
had been more lukewarm earlier in the year in its public
pronouncements on the matter. (Note: The GSL's major
public statement re the Iraq war issued on March 20 was
relatively constructive, but with nuances -- see
Reftels. It cited Iraq's failure to disarm and also
expressed "confidence" that the coalition would move to
minimize any negative impacts the war might have. The
statement, however, went on to underscore the central
role the UN should play regarding war and peace issues.)

-- Taranjit Sandhu, political counselor at the Indian
High Commission, told polchief that he thought the
negative press play was indeed indicative of some
opposition to the PM's comments within Sri Lanka's body
politic. He doubted that such resistance would amount
to much, however, given the PM's "strong" political
position at home at this time. Elaborating, Sandhu said
he did not think most Sri Lankans had noticed the PM's
UNGA address in any case -- they remained more focused
on the peace process and the local economic situation,
and news in these areas was basically positive.

--------------
COMMENT
--------------


6. (C) Despite the flak he has received at home over
his UNGA remarks, there is every sign that PM
Wickremesinghe will continue to steer GSL foreign policy
in a direction friendly to the U.S. As reported
previously, the Prime Minister appears to have made a
determination quite early in his tenure that he wanted a
closer relationship with the U.S. than that maintained
by the previous government. His comments at UNGA and
Sri Lanka's recent helpfulness at Cancun on trade issues
were only the latest and the most public examples of
this long-standing policy, which included signing an ICC
Article 98 agreement with the U.S. in November 2002. As
flagged above, in spite of the editorials, we do not
think his pro-U.S. "tilt" will cause him many problems.
END COMMENT.


7. (U) Minimize considered.

LUNSTEAD