NORWEGIANS SEE NO PROGRESS ON JOINT RELIEF

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000797

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/28/2015
TAGS: PREL PTER EAID PGOV CE NO LTTE
SUBJECT: NORWEGIANS SEE NO PROGRESS ON JOINT RELIEF
MECHANISM

REF: (A) COLOMBO 0789 (B) COLOMBO 0741

Classified By: Charge d'Affaires James F. Entwistle for reason 1.4 (d).


1. (C) Summary. The Norwegians report no progress on
the joint relief mechanism since Solheim's visit earlier in
April. Norwegian FM Peterson will try to cajole CBK (just
returned from vacation) towards progress in an imminent
phone conversation; DFM Helgesen may appear on BBC to rebut
the view that the mechanism is a Norwegian initiative being
imposed on the local parties. Norwegian ambassador opines
that his government should seriously reassess its
facilitation role if the mechanism effort fails, as should
the co-chairs. End Summary


2. (C) Charge' called on Norwegian Ambassador Hans
Brattskar April 28 for a status report on the joint
mechanism between the government of Sri Lanka (GSL),the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Muslim
community on tsunami relief in the north and east. A glum
Brattskar said there has been no progress since Norwegian
envoy Solheim's visit (Ref B),especially since President
Kumaratunga (CBK) had been abroad on vacation (she returned
to Colombo April 26). He told the Charge' that Norwegian
Foreign Minister Peterson would be calling CBK in the next
twenty-four hours (a planned call earlier on April 28 had
not worked out due to a misunderstanding over time
differences). In that call, Brattskar said, Peterson will
tell CBK that it is time to fish or cut bait on the joint
mechanism. If she is serious, the Foreign Minister will
say, it must be signed by next week at the latest.
Brattskar said he has been making the same points at the
working level already.


3. (C) Brattskar said he is not at all sanguine that CBK
has the political courage to go forward on the mechanism.
She is under increasing attack on numerous fronts from
coalition "partner" JVP; the rhetoric will only get harsher
over the upcoming "May Day weekend." Moreover, her Muslim
allies in her coalition are harshly critical of the joint
mechanism. For their part, the LTTE has told Brattskar it
wants to sign but will not publicly "say yes" if there is a
chance the GSL will publicly "say no." Brattskar
underlined that all of the substantive and textual
differences have been resolved. What remains is the
political question of whether to sign. Even if both sides
agree to go forward, Brattskar noted, the mechanics of a
"signing" will be problematic. The document would likely
be signed by the LTTE Peace Secretariat. On the government
side, however, Brattskar has been told that GSL Peace
Secretariat chief Jayantha Dhanapala would not sign.

SIPDIS
Rather, it should be one of the "line ministers" who would
have some responsibility for implementing the mechanism.
Brattskar said he doubts there would be an actual joint
ceremony. Rather, he would take the document up to
Kilinochchi for a signature and then bring it back
down for the same in Colombo.


4. (C) Brattskar agreed with the Charge's assessment that
the public campaign against the mechanism and against the
Norwegian facilitators had become extremely ugly in recent
days (although knocked off the April 28 front pages by
coverage of a serious rail accident); the local press was
becoming subsumed in the issue of who first came up with
the idea of a mechanism. (Examples: A number of editorials
have cast the mechanism as something being imposed by the
Norwegians, rather than the product of Sri Lankan
negotiations facilitated by Norwegians, to which Sri Lanka
must accede if it wants to receive donor assistance. The
Patriotic National Movement (a JVP front) plastered city
streets with a particularly gruesome image - the photo of a
slain public servant, killed by the LTTE while having his
lunch, accompanied by the comment "Do we give murderous
tiger terrorists who murdered Mr. Kallanathan (who was then
a Director in the Ministry of Vocational Training for the
North and East) while having his meal, a joint mechanism?"
The right-wing Buddhist Monk party, Jathika Hela Urumaya
(JHU),asked how the GSL could enter into the deal "with a
criminal and terrorist." During an April 27 meeting with
Polchief, JHU representatives claimed that, despite never
having seen the draft of the joint mechanism agreement, it
would confer status and legitimacy on the LTTE and provide
a means for direct payments to the LTTE, which they would
use to purchase weapons.)

5. (C) Brattskar said that Norwegian Deputy Foreign
Minister Helgesen probably would be interviewed on BBC
April 28 from Oslo and would make the point that the GSL
and the LTTE both had, immediately after the tsunami,
recognized the need for some sort of joint arrangement and
that Norway had been facilitating a Sri Lankan initiative,
not imposing its own ideas. Brattskar said Helgesen also
might make the point (as Brattskar has been doing) that
much of the criticism of the mechanism is misguided since
it implies that, if the GSL agrees to the mechanism, it
will be initiating a process of consultation with and
outreach to the Tigers. "The government crossed that
bridge with the cease-fire agreement," Brattskar noted. If
the joint mechanism founders, Brattskar commented, it would
be time for the Norwegians to seriously reconsider whether
they should continue the facilitation effort since, absent
a mechanism, there is no chance of progress back towards
the peace table. Brattskar said the early June timeframe
for a co-chairs meeting in Washington would be perfect
since "we may have to have some serious discussions."
ENTWISTLE