Japanese proposal for donor meeting in Colombo

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000054

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS; NSC FOR E. MILLARD

PLEASE ALSO PASS TOPEC

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01-12-14
TAGS: PGOV PREL PINS EAID PINR CE LTTE
SUBJECT: Japanese proposal for donor meeting in Colombo
during upcoming Akashi visit unpopular with other donors

Refs: Colombo 51, and previous

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


1. (C) SUMMARY: Japan has proposed that Special Envoy
Akashi convene a formal "Tokyo Follow-up Meeting" during
his late-January visit to Sri Lanka. Both the GSL and
most, if not all, other donors think a formal meeting is
not a good idea. They prefer to see Akashi's visit as a
prelude to a February Co-chairs meeting in Washington.
Donors will hash this out January 12 and 13. The GSL is
also trying to dissuade Akashi from visiting
Kilinochchi. END SUMMARY.


2. (C) During a January 10 meeting with Prime Minister
Wickremesinghe and Milinda Moragoda on the political
situation, (see Reftel),conversation turned to the
January 19-25 visit of Japanese Special Envoy Akashi and
an early-February Co-chairs meeting in Washington.
Donors, including the U.S., had received a fax from the
Japanese Embassy on Friday, January 9, stating that
during his visit, Akashi would "convene a second Follow-
up Meeting of the Tokyo Conference" on January 23. This
provoked strong reactions in Colombo. Dutch Ambassador
Susanna Blankhart (recently taken over the EU Presidency
in Colombo, since Ireland has no resident mission here)
called Ambassador that same afternoon in high dudgeon.
She said she saw no purpose in such a meeting, since the
peace negotiations were at an impasse and donors were
likely to be uncertain what to do. The Ambassador told
her that we, the Italian Ambassador who was her
predecessor representing the EU Presidency, and the
Norwegian Ambassador had all advised Japanese Ambassador
Suda several times that we thought a formal follow-up
meeting would not be helpful during Akashi's visit.


3. (C) During a January 11 conversation with the PM,
Milinda Moragoda said that he also thought that a formal
"Follow-up Meeting," with its attendant communique,
press conference, etc., would be a bad idea. Donors
have a number of serious issues to consider in light of
the impasse in peace negotiations, and a loosely-
structured and quickly-prepared meeting in Colombo is
not the place to deal with them. In addition, Moragoda
said, Akashi is planning a trip to Kilinochchi to meet
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) leadership after
the proposed Follow-up Meeting. Milinda said he had
told Suda that (a) any donor meeting should be informal
and (b) this was not a good time for Akashi to go to
Kilinochchi. Milinda said that Akashi's visit should be
seen as on-the-ground preparation for the February
Washington meeting. Milinda also thought that only the
U.S. could turn the Japanese around.


4. (C) Norwegian Ambassador Hans Brattskar made many of
the same points in conversation with the Ambassador on
the morning of January 12. Brattskar felt the issues
the donors needed to grapple with now were sufficiently
complicated that they could not be dealt with properly
in such a meeting. Brattskar thought it would be
particularly bad for Akashi to visit Kilinochi after a
formal donor meeting, since that would put pressure on
Akashi to convey the "donor position" to the LTTE.
Brattskar thought it would be far better for Akashi to
see the LTTE (and the GSL) first and then report to an
informal donors meeting on what he had concluded. This
could then fit into the preparations for a February
meeting. Brattskar said that he would call Helgesen and
suggest Helgesen phone Akashi directly to make these
points.


5. (C) Japanese Ambassador Suda had earlier invited the
large donor group to a meeting on Tuesday, January 13.
He has now abruptly asked the smaller Co-chairs group to
a meeting on the afternoon of Monday, January 12. We
surmise that he realizes he is in for a rough ride and
wants to see if he has any support before he confronts
the larger group. The trick will be to make him see --
and to get him to convey to Tokyo -- that Akashi's visit
can be useful, but that a formal Tokyo follow-up meeting
during the visit will not serve that purpose.


6. (C) COMMENT: This Akashi visit is following the
same pattern as the last one in September 2003, in which
Tokyo proposes to dictate the program without
consultation. That prior experience may be one reason
for the unexpectedly vociferous donor reaction here,
which is probably not helpful. Brattskar has commented
that the EU is quite suspicious of the Japanese trying
to obtain a larger -- and in the EU view -- unwarranted
role for themselves. We will try in the meetings here
on Monday and Tuesday to steer this gently in the right
direction so that the Japanese can change course without
losing too much face. END COMMENT.

LTTE Calling
--------------


7. (U) In the meantime, LTTE "Planning and Development
Secretariat" has sent e-mails to most donors inviting

SIPDIS
them to a January 19 meeting in Kilinochchi to discuss
"options and strategies to initiate and coordinate new
rehabilitation and development programs in the
Northeast, particularly during the transition period."
Several donors, including UK and Norway, have already
accepted this invitation.


8. (C) The Department may recall that a similar
invitation to the inauguration of the Planning and
Development Secretariat in late November 2003caused
considerable division within the donor community, and
was eventually cancelled by the LTTE. This time around,
a number of donors seem to want to treat this as a
simple working-level discussion, similar to those they
have on a bilateral basis with LTTE. UK High
Commissioner Evans told the Ambassador that he had
immediately fired off a positive response "without
consulting London." This may be an attempt by the UK
and others who wanted to attend the original meeting to
avoid an EU row by pre-emption. Dutch Ambassador
Blankhart told the Ambassador January 9 that the issue
would be discussed at an EU coordination meeting January

12. Seems the UK has beaten the others to the punch.


9. (C) The Department may also recall that the USAID
Director had received an invitation to the November 2003
meeting. The USAID Director, who is currently out of
town, has received another invite this time around. We
do not believe this meeting (which would feature a
speech by LTTE Political Leader S.P. Thamilchelvam)
would meet our criteria for meeting with the LTTE at the
working level for discussion of technical issues only.


10. (U) Minimize considered.


LUNSTEAD