Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04COLOMBO911
2004-06-03 10:38:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Colombo
Cable title:  

Co-chairs meeting in Brussels receives a

Tags:  PREL PGOV EAID CE NO JA EU 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 02 COLOMBO 000911 

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, EAP/J, EUR/NB, EUR/ERA
NSC FOR E. MILLARD

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06-03-14
TAGS: PREL PGOV EAID CE NO JA EU LTTE
SUBJECT: Co-chairs meeting in Brussels receives a
positive welcome in Sri Lanka

Refs: (A) Colombo 897, and previous

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

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000911

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, EAP/J, EUR/NB, EUR/ERA
NSC FOR E. MILLARD

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06-03-14
TAGS: PREL PGOV EAID CE NO JA EU LTTE
SUBJECT: Co-chairs meeting in Brussels receives a
positive welcome in Sri Lanka

Refs: (A) Colombo 897, and previous

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


1. (C) SUMMARY: Local reaction to the Sri Lanka donor
co-chairs meeting held in Brussels on June 1 has been
largely positive. Embassy interlocutors were
appreciative of the international community's sustained
support for the peace process. Media coverage has been
light so far and focused on the linkages between aid and
progress in the peace talks. All in all, the co-chairs'
statement has reassured Sri Lankans that the
international community remains committed to the peace
process and that the group is looking for the government
and the Tigers to find a way to meet at the peace table
soon. END SUMMARY.


2. (C) POLITICAL REACTION: While there has been no
official reaction from President Kumaratunga's office as
of late June 3 regarding the meeting of the four co-
chairs of the Tokyo Process (EU, Japan, Norway, and the
U.S.),the reaction from political contacts have been
largely positive. Excerpts of reaction follow:

-- Harim Peiris, Presidential Spokesman and Director
General of the Office of Rehabilitation, Reconstruction,
and Refugees, told poloff he felt the renewed attention
on Sri Lanka in the wake of the June 1 co-chairs meeting
was extremely positive. He stressed the GSL's keen
desire to resume talks and the government's focus now on
resolving modalities and the core issues to be discussed
when talks recommence. Peiris realized, however, that a
successful return to peace negotiations would require
compromises by all parties. He also noted that Sri
Lanka's economic health was linked in large part to the
rehabilitation work that would come with the
disbursement of the $4.5 billion in aid pledged at the
June 2003 Tokyo donors conference.

-- R. Sampathan, a senior MP with the pro-Tiger Tamil
National Alliance (TNA),welcomed the co-chairs'

continued support and the surrounding positive publicity
for the peace process. Feeling that current efforts to
resume peace negotiations were faring only somewhat
well, Sampathan underscored that the interim
administration proposal by the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was "fundamental to a lasting
solution." In this regard, he was hopeful that both
sides would heed the co-chairs' call for a return to the
peace table. Although he recognized the logical need
for donor aid to be contingent on progress with the
peace process, Sampathan was worried that, without
progress, aid would get directed elsewhere and not to
the north/east where it was a "dire necessity."

-- Naveen Dissanayake, a United National Party (UNP) MP
from the hill country, told poloff that he hoped the GSL
would take particular note of the co-chairs statement
urging the resumption of talks. Dissanayake felt that
the government had not fully thought out its plan of
action for the peace process and the message from the
international community would provide incentive for the
GSL to focus on the challenging issues surrounding
negotiations. Commenting on the UNP's recent electoral
loss, Dissanayake said he also hoped, with the political
dynamic reversed, that President Kumaratunga would
dialogue with the UNP on the status and progress in
peace talks. (One of the President's major gripes with
the former UNP government was that she felt excluded
from its peace efforts.)


3. (C) Interlocutors from local think-tanks and civil
society also thought the co-chairs' statement was
positive and timely. Some of their reaction follows:

-- Jehan Perera, director of the National Peace Council,
a local civil society NGO, told poloff that he welcomed
the declaration by the co-chairs that they would remain
supportive of the GSL and the peace process. Knowing
that full release of the aid pledged at Tokyo in June
2003 would require progress in negotiations, Perera
wondered how the donors would respond if the situation
remained static -- both sides expressing willingness to
talk, but being unable to agree on the on how to move
the process forward. He thought, therefore, that the
possible loss of donor aid would ultimately put more
pressure on the LTTE to compromise and return to the
table. The GSL, he said, still has other sources of aid
and funding.

-- Echoing many of the same comments as Perera, Kethesh
Logananthan from the Center for Policy Alternatives, a
local think-tank, told poloff that the co-chairs'
statement would provide the needed push to get the peace
process back on track. Even if progress in the talks was
slow, he thought the Tigers would not give up their
economic interest in pursuing peace. Reflecting further
on the fact that the pledged aid was tied to progress at
the peace table, Logananthan said it was imperative for
the donor community to establish benchmarks for
"progress in the peace talks."


4. (C) MEDIA REACTION: Local media coverage of the
June 1 press statement by the co-chairs has been mainly
straightforward. Coverage of the meeting were scattered
through the English and vernacular presses. Many of the
reports focused on the conditionality of the pledged
aid, being tied to progress in the peace process. While
the Tigers have not publicly commented on the statement,
the pro-LTTE website, "TamilNet," contained the entire
statement and highlighted the co-chairs' comment that
there should be "no drift and no delay" in resuming the
peace process.


5. (C) COMMENT: On the whole, the substance and timing
of the June 1 statement by the co-chairs seems to have
been well-received locally as a demonstration of the
international community's support of the peace effort.
The language on aid clearly caught people's attention:
a common theme touched on by contacts was one of concern
that the donors could reach a point where they decided
conditions for the pledged aid at Tokyo were not being
met. END COMMENT.


6. (U) Minimize considered.

LUNSTEAD