Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
03COLOMBO720
2003-04-26 06:46:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Colombo
Cable title:  

Tigers issue constructive response to U.S.

Tags:  PGOV PTER PREL PINS KPAO CE LTTE 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 COLOMBO 000720 

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, S/CT
NSC FOR E. MILLARD
LONDON FOR POL/RIEDEL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04-28-13
TAGS: PGOV PTER PREL PINS KPAO CE LTTE
SUBJECT: Tigers issue constructive response to U.S.
statement re their pullout from talks

Refs: (A) FBIS Reston Va DTG 260646Z APR 03

- (B) Colombo 715, and previous

(U) Classified by Ambassador E. Ashley Wills.
Reasons: 1.5 (b, d).

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 COLOMBO 000720

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, S/CT
NSC FOR E. MILLARD
LONDON FOR POL/RIEDEL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04-28-13
TAGS: PGOV PTER PREL PINS KPAO CE LTTE
SUBJECT: Tigers issue constructive response to U.S.
statement re their pullout from talks

Refs: (A) FBIS Reston Va DTG 260646Z APR 03

- (B) Colombo 715, and previous

(U) Classified by Ambassador E. Ashley Wills.
Reasons: 1.5 (b, d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: Late April 25, chief Tamil Tiger
negotiator Anton Balasingham issued a direct response to
the April 24 U.S. statement re the group's pullout from
the peace talks. Balasingham's statement underscored
that the Tigers still support a negotiated settlement to
the conflict and said the group supported an "open
market economy based on liberal democratic values." We
agree with observers that the LTTE's reaction to our
statement was constructive. Suggested "if asked" press
guidance is contained in Para 7. END SUMMARY.

--------------
Latest Tiger Statement
--------------


2. (U) Late April 25, London-based chief Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) negotiator Anton
Balasingham issued a direct response to the U.S.
statement re the group's April 21 pullout from the peace
talks. (Note: See Ref B for the text of the U.S.
statement issued on April 24, which took the form of
Ambassador Wills' response to a series of questions.)
Balasingham's remarks, which are contained in Para 8,
were in question-and-answer format (like the U.S.
statement). Balasingham made the following key points
in his remarks:

-- Support for Negotiated Settlement: The first part of
the statement goes out of its way to underline that the
LTTE has not terminated the negotiating process. On
this point, Balasingham states: "We have not scuttled
the peace process...We have no intention of running away
from the negotiating process." The statement stresses
that the Tigers want to see progress on several issues
by the GSL, including regarding the delivery of
humanitarian assistance and the reduction in size of the
Jaffna security zones. In light of these outstanding
issues, Balasingham states that "Our decision to

temporarily suspend negotiations giving time for the
government to act is a fair and rationale form of
protest."

-- Renouncing Terrorism and Violence: In its second key
section, the statement asserts that the LTTE has
"already abdicated all acts of armed violence ever since
we signed the ceasefire agreement." Re disarmament,
Balasingham indicates that this can only be considered
at a later stage in the peace process, stating "The
ethnic conflict is not yet resolved and the threat of
Sinhala military aggression of Tamil lands is not yet
over. Under these circumstances, decommissioning or
abdication of arms is non-negotiable." The statement
goes on to note that even under the terms of a
negotiated settlement Tamils might "need a security
system that would permanently ensure the protection" of
their rights.

-- Nature of Economic Problems: Balasingham admits that
past LTTE attacks "had disastrous effects on the
island's economy." That said, Balasingham goes on to
assert -- as he did in his April 21 statement regarding
the LTTE's pullout from the talks -- that actions (bad
economic planning, corruption, etc.) by "successive" Sri
Lankan governments are the root cause of poverty in the
south, not the war. Thus, he continues, the focus of
international assistance efforts should be on the war-
torn north and east, and not the south.

-- General Economic/Political Stance: Balasingham makes
clear that the Tigers support an "open market economy
based on liberal democratic values." Continuing, he
notes that further details on Tiger economic/fiscal
policies "would have to be worked out...in the final
framework of a system of federal government at a later
stage."

--------------
Reaction to LTTE Statement
--------------


3. (C) Reaction to the LTTE statement has been quite
positive. The Ambassador's April 26 meeting with
Minister G.L. Peiris, the government's chief negotiator,
illustrates this. Peiris began the meeting by
expressing deep distress over the peace process
(Note: Peiris' private concerns were markedly different
from the upbeat posture he has maintained in public --
see Ref B.) Peiris visibly brightened, however, when he
received a phone call from visiting Norwegian envoy (and
former ambassador to Sri Lanka) Jon Westborg, who
stressed that he thought that Balasingham's comments
were quite constructive and could indicate a softening
in the LTTE's position re the peace talks.


4. (C) Westborg was quite explicit on this point in an
April 28 meeting with the Ambassador, underlining that
he thought that Balasingham's comments represented a
sharp shift in tone away from the Tigers' harsh April 21
rhetoric pulling out of the talks. In explaining the
change in tone, Westborg commented that the Tigers seem
to have received strong signals from the international
community, especially via the U.S. statement on
April 24, that it should not go too far. (Note: FYI.
Westborg and newly arrived Norwegian Ambassador Hans
Brattskar plan to travel to the LTTE-controlled Wanni
region on April 30 to meet Tiger political chief S.P.
Thamilchelvam. The key topics on the agenda will be
ways to get the talks re-started and the Tokyo
conference slated to take place in June, which the LTTE
has said it will not attend. The Norwegians plan to
press the LTTE to change its mind and confirm its
participation in Tokyo as soon as possible, so that
planning for the meeting can go forward. End Note.)


5. (C) Other local reaction has been equally positive.
Nanda Godage, an official at the GSL Peace Secretariat
and former ambassador, told polchief April 27 that he
thought the U.S. statement had "definitely prodded the
LTTE to proceed in a more conciliatory manner." Godage
said he hoped that the LTTE' April 25 statement presaged
a positive response to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe's
formal response to the LTTE's pullout from the talks,
which was scheduled to go out some time this week. In
addition, poloffs were told by G. Ponnambalam, a Tamil
National Alliance MP, that he thought that the LTTE's
latest statement indicated that the group was still
strongly committed to the peace process. All the Tigers
wanted, he asserted, was for positive changes on the
ground, especially the reduction in the size of the
military's security zones in Jaffna. The group
definitely did not want a return to armed struggle, he
concluded. (Note: Septel contains additional media
reaction to the April 24 U.S. statement.)

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


6. (C) We agree with observers that the LTTE's reaction
to our statement was constructive. As noted above,
Balasingham's tone seemed much more moderate and less
sharp than it had been in his April 21 letter to the
prime minister suspending the talks. Moreover, the fact
that the LTTE emphasized its continued support for a
negotiated settlement was good news. It was also
positive that the group said it supported an "open
market economy based on liberal democratic values." As
far as we are aware, this is the first time the group
has said that. On the negative side of the ledger,
Balasingham took a hard-line stance re disarmament,
indicating that any discussion of this key subject would
be kicked down far, far down the road. Even in light of
the apparent change of tone by Balasingham, our guess is
that the Norwegians and the GSL have a fair amount of
work to do to get the peace process back on track.
Their efforts won't be easy -- the Tigers seem to be
driving a hard bargain, almost as if they figure the
government has no choice but to meet their demands
eventually. END COMMENT.

--------------
Suggested Press Guidance
--------------


7. (SBU) Suggested "if asked" press guidance follows:

Question:

What is the U.S. reaction to the April 25 remarks by
Tiger negotiator Balasingham?

Answer:

We read the remarks by Mr. Balasingham with great
interest. We continue to urge the Tigers to return to
the peace talks and to confirm their participation in
the Tokyo donors conference scheduled to take place in
June as soon as possible.

--------------
Text of April 25 LTTE Statement
--------------


8. (U) As carried by the pro-LTTE website TamilNet, the
text of the LTTE's April 25 statement by Anton
Balasingham follows:

Begin text:

April 25

>> TamilNet: Mr. Ashley Wills, the US Ambassador to Sri
Lanka, in a comprehensive interview with Reuters, ahs
presented a critical review of the LTTE's position as
set out in your letter to the Prime Minister Mr. Ranil
Wickremesinghe. What, in your view, is the central
thrust of this argument? Do you agree with him?

>> Mr. Balasingham: Mr. Wills' central contention is
that the LTTE should continue to engage the Government
of Sri Lanka to address grievances rather than walking
away from talks. There is an element of
misunderstanding here with regard to our position. We
have not terminated the negotiating process or walked
away from talks. What we have decided is to temporarily
suspend the talks to provide time and space for the
government to implement crucial decisions, particularly
the normalization aspects of the Ceasefire Agreement.
We have not scuttled the peace process or terminated
negotiations. We intentionally created an interval, an
interregnum for the government to take immediate and
constructive measures to address urgent humanitarian
issues faced by the Tamils. We have taken the talks
very seriously and the implementation of the decisions
at the talks more seriously. Our intention is to
pressurize the government to realize the urgency of the
existential issues confronting our people and to impress
upon them the importance of fulfilling obligations,
pledges and decisions. The internally displaced and the
refugees have been languishing in refugee camps and
welfare centres for more than ten years. Obligations
under Ceasefire Agreement have not been fulfilled for
nearly fifteen months. Our pleas for the last six
months during sessions of talks, to resolve the issue of
resettlement have not been taken seriously. I don't
think Mr. Wills has understood the frustrations and the
enormous suffering of the uprooted Tamils. The
Ceasefire Agreement is a serious commitment by the
parties in conflict, not only to cease armed
confrontations but to create conditions to restore
normal life to the Tamil civilian population also. The
Sri Lankan armed forces have yet to fulfil their
obligations under the truce and continue to violate the
fundamental rights of the refugees to return to their
homes and villages. This is the problem in a nutshell.
We are representing the interest of our people. As the
representatives of our people we reserve the right to
express our displeasure if decisions at the talks are
not implemented and bilateral agreements are not
fulfilled. Our decision to temporarily suspend
negotiations giving time for the government to act is a
fair and rational form of protest. We wish to assure
Mr. Wills that we have no intention of running away from
the negotiating process or `pulling out of the talks' as
he puts it. We have reiterated our commitment to seek a
negotiated settlement in our letter addressed to Mr.
Wickramasinghe.

>> TamilNet: Mr. Ashley Wills has reiterated the usual
American position that the LTTE should renounce
`terrorism and violence' to be accepted and respected by
the international community. He further says that the
possession of weapons and the maintenance of armed
formations by the LTTE are not going to protect Tamil
rights but rather will prolong the conflict. What is
your comment on this position?

>> Mr. Balasingham: Mr. Wills as well as Mr. Armitage
have always advocated the renunciation of `terrorism and
violence' by the LTTE. The Americans are well aware
that our organization has already abdicated all aspects
of armed violence ever since we signed a Ceasefire
Agreement. Yet we do have military formations to
protect our lands and our people. The ethnic conflict
is not yet resolved and the threat of Sinhala military
aggression of Tamil lands is not yet over. Under these
circumstances, decommissioning or abdication of arms is
non-negotiable. The majority of the Tamil people will
not agree with Mr. Wills' perception that the
maintenance of armed formations by the LTTE would not
protect the Tamil rights but rather create conflicts.
On this issue the Tamils seriously differ with Mr.
Wills. Our people have suffered bitter historical
experience of state terror and oppression extending over
decades. The Tamils resorted to armed resistance as the
last resort to defend their right to existence. Having
gone through turbulent periods of state repression and
armed resistance, of failed negotiations and betrayals,
the Tamil people have genuine fears and anxieties with
regards to their safe and secure existence. The Tamils
are seeking, not only substantial political autonomy but
also a security system that would permanently ensure the
protection of their right to live peacefully with
dignity and freedom in their historically given
homeland. I sincerely hope that the Americans will
appreciate and understand the aspirations as well as
apprehensions of a people who have faced genocidal
oppression from State terrorism and violence.

>> TamilNet: Mr. Wills argues that your theme that the
economic deprivation of the south and the devastation of
the northeast could not be blamed entirely on Colombo's
misguided policies. He says that the LTTE's violent
`separatist agenda' was also a contributory factor for
the impoverished conditions of the south. What do you
say?

>> Mr. Balasingham: Mr. Wills agrees that successive
Sri Lankan governments have made blunders. I stand by
my view that the economic chaos of Sri Lanka is self-
inflicted in the sense that disastrous militaristic
policies based on heavy international borrowing coupled
with bad governance, bureaucratic inefficiency and
widespread corruption were the contributing factors for
the collapse of the economic system. I do not deny the
fact that the LTTE's defensive war campaigns that
included strikes at the state's economic targets had
disastrous effects on the island's economy. The LTTE's
armed struggle can only be characterized as reactive
violence against state violence, a form of resistance
against intolerable repression. Mr. Wills, who should
be familiar with the evolutionary history of the armed
resistance movement of the Tamils knows very well that
successive Sri Lankan governments, until the assumption
of the present regime, adopted rigid militaristic
policies that intensified the conditions of war which
brought colossal destruction of the Tamil nation and led
to the economic collapse of the Sinhala nation. Apart
from the causal problems of the conflict Mr. Wills will
certainly agree that poverty and deprivation prevailing
in the northeast are far worse than that of the south.

>> TamilNet: Mr. Ashley Wills suggests that the LTTE is
expecting to much too soon by way of a peace divided,
that `Rome wasn't built in a day' as he put it. How do
you respond?

>> Mr. Balasingham: There are two distinct issues here;
first, the urgent and immediate problems faced by the
Tamil people and secondly, the long-term economic
development of the Tamil areas. The two should not be
confused. As I have said, our present concern and
intention is to pressurize the government to realize the
urgency of the existential issues confronting our
people. Hundreds of thousands of Tamils are being
prevented from returning to their homes due to ongoing
military occupation. The infrastructure of the Tamil
areas, where the conflict has been raging, has been
completely destroyed. We do not accept that the
resettling of the displaced people and refugees, the
restoration of normalcy or the rehabilitation efforts
are matters to be addressed in the course of time. We
have been stressing the importance of this from the
outset of the peace process and are disappointed at the
government's refusal to take this issue seriously.
However, the long term development of the Tamil areas is
something separate to be discussed and addressed in the
future.

>> TamilNet: The American Ambassador is questioning the
economic ideology of the LTTE. What is your comment?

>> Mr. Balasingham: I can only say that we are in favor
of an open market economy based on liberal democratic
values. Specific economic policies and fiscal
arrangements have to be worked out in more detail in the
final framework of a system of federal government at a
later stage.

End text.


9. (U) Minimize considered.

WILLS