Protesting "exclusion" from April 14 seminar,

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000643

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, S/CT; NSC FOR E. MILLARD
LONDON FOR POL/RIEDEL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04-14-13
TAGS: PGOV PTER EAID ASEC CE NO JA LTTE
SUBJECT: Protesting "exclusion" from April 14 seminar,
Tigers say they might not attend conference in June

Refs: (A) Colombo-SA/INS 04/14/03 fax
- (B) OpsCenter-Colombo 04/13/03 telecon
- (C) FBIS Reston Va DTG 121213Z Apr 03
- (D) Colombo 589, and previous

(U) Classified by Lewis Amselem, Deputy Chief of
Mission. Reasons: 1.5 (b,d).


1. (SBU) In a public statement issued late April 12,
the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) organization
announced that it was reviewing its decision to
participate in the donors conference scheduled to be
held in Tokyo in June. The statement, which was posted
on the pro-LTTE website "TamilNet" and faxed to SA/INS,
said this "review" was necessitated by the group's
"deliberate exclusion" from the State Department-
sponsored Washington seminar re Sri Lanka being held on
April 14. (Note: The LTTE is on the Foreign Terrorist
Organization list, and, thus, was not issued an
invitation to participate in the April 14 meeting -- See
Ref D.)


2. (SBU) The statement makes no direct mention of the
U.S. (Note: Previous statements by the Tigers on this
issue have accused the U.S. of trying to "isolate" the
Tigers by not inviting them to Washington.) It also
does not indicate that the group has any plans to end
its engagement in the peace process. The group, for
example, does not threaten to end its participation in
the ongoing peace talks with the Sri Lankan government,
nor does it threaten to stop cooperating with the
Norwegian-led Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM). The
statement, however, does hit out hard against the GSL
and the Norwegian government facilitators, complaining
that they picked the wrong venue (i.e., Washington) to
hold the seminar (as the LTTE could not attend). The
statement also goes on to criticize what the LTTE sees
as the GSL's failure to draw down the military's "high
security zones" in Jaffna, stating:

"The irreconcilable attitude of the Sri Lankan military
hierarchy, and the impotence of (Prime Minister) Ranil
Wickremesinghe's administration have made all programs
of resettling and rehabilitating hundreds of thousands
of Tamil refugees and IDPs (displaced persons)
unrealizable. The very efficacy of the negotiating
process has become questionable since decisions and
agreements reached at the peace talks are not being
implemented (thus) eroding the confidence of the Tamil
people."


3. (C) With Sri Lanka completely shut down in
celebration of Sinhalese and Tamil New Year, there has
been little reaction to the LTTE's statement as of yet.
We managed to reach two Tamil contacts, however.

N. Raviraj, a MP for the Tamil National Alliance (TNA)
who has a difficult relationship with the LTTE (see
Ref D),told us that many Tamils were talking about the
LTTE's statement. Raviraj said Tamils he had spoken
with felt that it was very unfortunate that the group
was speaking of possibly boycotting a conference meant
to bring aid to the war-torn north/east. V. Thevaraj,
editor of "Virakesari," a Tamil-language newspaper,
thought that the LTTE's announcement was not a "good
thing" for the peace process. He said the announcement
was clearly sparked by the Tigers' deep anger at not
being invited to the Washington seminar.


4. (C) COMMENT: The LTTE's announcement is clearly a
highly emotional one. In making the statement, however,
it is positive that the group did not threaten to
withdraw from the peace talks. (Note: The seventh
round of talks is scheduled to take place April 29 -
May 2 in Bangkok, although the venue may be changed due
to the SARS epidemic.) That said, the language used in
the statement re the GSL is quite sharp. The Tigers'
threat to boycott the donors conference is a bit
bizarre. As mentioned above, a key aspect of the
meeting is to organize assistance to the north and east,
including LTTE-controlled areas. The Tigers, of course,
have a long history of cutting off their nose to spite
their face, but their threat to boycott the conference
could well be a bluff given their clear interest in
seeing it go forward. END COMMENT.


5. (U) Minimize considered.

WILLS