GSL still a party to the ceasefire with the

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000032

SIPDIS

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

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01-08-14
TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER MOPS CE LTTE
SUBJECT: GSL still a party to the ceasefire with the
Tigers; PM's remarks do not net a positive reaction

Refs: (A) Colombo 26, and previous

(U) Classified by Ambassador Jeffrey J. Lunstead.
Reasons 1.5 (b, d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: In the wake of the PM's January 7
comments calling for the President to take
responsibility for the ceasefire agreement with the
Tigers, the ceasefire is still in effect and fears that
the GSL would withdraw from the agreement have subsided.
The ceasefire remains intact, as both sides appear to be
observing the agreement as usual. A presidential
spokesman said that the President's position of working
towards a compromise had not changed following the PM's
January 7 remarks. Contacts have told us they see only
political machinations, and not solutions, in the Prime
Minister's call for the President to take charge of the
peace process. The PM's comments on the ceasefire
agreement do not seem to have netted him any political
gain. END SUMMARY.


2. (C) INSIGHTS FROM PM'S PARTY: In the wake of Prime
Minister Wickremesinghe's January 7 comments calling for
President Kumaratunga to take responsibility for the
ceasefire agreement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE),the ceasefire remains in effect and fears
that the GSL would withdraw from the agreement have
subsided. (Note: The PM's remarks to amend the
ceasefire stem from the President's continuing hold of
the defense portfolio.) In making such announcements,
Navin Dissanayake, a high profile MP in the United
National Party (UNP),said the PM was being swayed by a
few party hardliners over the majority of MPs who wanted
the two leaders to work together. Dissanayake thought
that the President had offered some workable solutions
to the political impasse -- such as making the PM the
"National Security Minister" -- but that the PM was
succumbing to pressure from the hardliners which echoed
his personal desire to remove the President from the
political scene. Dissanayake said he believed, in the
end, the President would most likely not return to the
PM control of the defense ministry.


3. (C) NO CHANGE IN CEASEFIRE OBSERVANCE: The
ceasefire remains intact, as both sides appear to be
observing the agreement as usual. Colonel Sumeda
Perera, Military Spokesman, told us that there has been
no change in the security force operations and the
military continues to observe the mandate of the
ceasefire. Agnes Bragadottir, Sri Lanka Monitoring
Mission spokeswoman, told us there had not been any
difference in LTTE activities nor any reports of alleged
ceasefire violations. As of yet, the Tigers have not
publicly commented on the PM's remarks. Gajen
Ponnamabalam, a member of the pro-LTTE Tamil National
Alliance, expressed his concern to us about the
political uncertainty created by the PM's January 7
remarks about the ceasefire. He warned that the Tamil
people would have no other option than to seek a
separate state if the PM and President can not come
together over the ceasefire and move forward with the
peace process.


4. (C) PRESIDENT'S OFFICE CALLS TO WORK TOGETHER: In a
January 8 conversation with poloff, Harim Peiris,
presidential spokesman, said that President
Kumaratunga's position had not changed following the
PM's call for her to take control of the peace process.
Peiris said the President remains committed to going
forward with the peace process in a joint manner with
the Prime Minister. He added, however, that the
president's office was "surprised" by the PM's January 7
remarks, stating there had been no formal Cabinet
decision or prior discussion with the President to
request an amendment to the ceasefire. Peiris said that
the President's attitude was that the ceasefire had
continued smoothly for the last two months (since her
November 4 takeover of the defense and two other
ministries) and there was no need to amend the agreement
at this time.


5. (C) OBSERVERS SEE POLITICAL MOTIVATION: Contacts
have told us they see only political machinations, and
not solutions, in the Prime Minister's call for the
President to take charge of the peace process. Kethesh
Loganathan, an analyst at the Center for Policy
Alternatives, a local think-tank, told poloff that the
PM's charge to the President was clearly a political
move to "put the ball in the President's court"
regarding the unresolved issue over control of the
defense ministry. He did not see the likelihood of the
President accepting the total control of the peace
process, but was hesitant to dismiss the idea
completely. Separately, Azmi Thassim, director of the
Chamber of Commerce in the southern coastal town of
Hambantota, told poloff that he was unhappy with the
PM's January 7 remarks, as the PM needed to work to
solve the current political situation, not exacerbate
it. The general public, Thassim said, wants peace and
that will only come from the President and Prime
Minister working together.


6. (C) COMMENT: The PM's comments on the ceasefire
agreement were presumably intended to remind the public
of the stark political choices before them and to put
the President on the defensive, but they do not seem to
have netted him any political gain. The President, who
returns today (January 8) from the SAARC summit, does
not seem to have risen to the PM's bait. She continues
to emphasize publicly her willingness to compromise,
which seems to strike a sympathetic chord. END COMMENT


7. (U) Minimize considered.


LUNSTEAD