Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05COLOMBO648
2005-04-01 06:21:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Colombo
Cable title:  

FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS ANTI-CONVERSION BILL WILL

Tags:  KIRF PHUM CE 
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 COLOMBO 000648 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/01/2015
TAGS: KIRF PHUM CE
SUBJECT: FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS ANTI-CONVERSION BILL WILL
NOT GO TO PARLIAMENT.

REF: (A) COLOMBO 606 (B) STATE 59616

Classified By: AMBASSADOR JEFFREY J. LUNSTEAD FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (
D).

C O N F I D E N T I A L COLOMBO 000648

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/01/2015
TAGS: KIRF PHUM CE
SUBJECT: FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS ANTI-CONVERSION BILL WILL
NOT GO TO PARLIAMENT.

REF: (A) COLOMBO 606 (B) STATE 59616

Classified By: AMBASSADOR JEFFREY J. LUNSTEAD FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (
D).


1. (C) Prior to receipt April 1 of ref b directing post to
demarche GSL on proposed anti-conversion legislation,
Ambassador had raised issue with Foreign Minister
Kadirgamar on March 28 (ref a). Ambassador then discussed
issue twice with Foreign Minister on afternoon of March 31
and with Foreign Secretary Palihakkara on evening of March

31. Following receipt of ref b, Ambassador again talked to
Foreign Secretary on April 1.


2. (C) Following that discussion, Foreign Minister
Kadirgamar telephoned Ambassador April 1 to say that he had
raised the issue with President Kumaratunga the previous
evening, mentioning specifically his conversations with
Ambassador. Kumaratunga had told him to relay specifically
to the US that she had no intention of allowing the Bill to
go to Parliament. Kadirgamar said that the President had
told him that she was not present at the Cabinet meeting
where the decision was taken to move the Bill.


3. (C) Ambassador thanked Kadirgamar for this news and
asked him what he thought we should say to the many people
who were enquiring about this issue. Kadirgamar said we
could say that we had been informed that the Government of
Sri Lanka had no intent to move the Bill to Parliament. We
should not mention the President's personal role.
Ambassador asked how the President would accomplish this,
since the Cabinet had already agreed to send the Bill.
Kadirgamar said the President would take care of that, and
that the Buddha Sasana Minister, who would have to present
the Bill in Parliament, "is a loyalist."


4. (C) Kadirgamar continued that Sri Lanka did face a
genuine issue in that induced conversions were taking
place. Ambassador replied that he believed the Government
should take a positive and pro-active role in defusing this
issue, perhaps by assisting in the formation of an Inter-
Religious Council, where religious leaders could work
together in areas such as a voluntary code of conduct.
Kadirgamar agreed this would be a good idea. Ambassador
said, however, that no matter what steps were taken, there
would still be some groups which would proselytize and
attempt to convert people, and Sri Lanka would have to
realize that. By taking positive steps to build religious
understanding and harmony, however, the impact of such
actions could be minimized.


5. (C) Shortly after the conversation, Papal Nuncio called
on Ambassador in a pre-scheduled appointment. Nuncio
elaborated on the Catholic Church's great concern about the
bill, stating that it would create a "climate of fear,"
especially for an institution, like the Catholic Church,
which was heavily involved in social welfare activities.
Ambassador shared substance of conversation with Foreign
Minister, which greatly relieved the Nuncio. Ambassador
and Nuncio also discussed the possible formation of an
Inter-Religious Council, and Ambassador suggested that
church leaders not wait for government to take the lead on
this issue.


6. (C) COMMENT: We take the President's statements, as
relayed through the Foreign Minister, at face value. We
are still not sure what happened here and why the Cabinet
took up the matter when it did. Other reports have said
that the President was present at the Cabinet meeting--now
we hear she was not. It is possible she had earlier agreed
to move the bill in a political calculus involving the
votes of the JHU (Buddhist monk) members of Parliament.
Our subsequent protests and warnings of potential
consequences may have forced her to re-evaluate the
calculus. Or it all may have just been a mistake. We
agree that our comment to concerned parties should simply
be that we have been informed that that the Government of
Sri Lanka has no intention of bringing the Bill before
Parliament. We should not link this specifically to the
President. The immediate issue of concern appears to be
resolved for the moment, but we will continue to monitor
this closely.
LUNSTEAD