Special Media Reaction: Further Reaction to

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 COLOMBO 000111

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR S/ES, INR/MR, PA
SA/INS (CAMP, SIM, GOWER) SA/PD (SCENSNY, ROGERS,
PALLADINO); SSA/PAS

SENSITIVE SIPDIS

E.O. 12958:N/A
TAGS: PHUM KPAO PTER EAID OIIP PREL CE LTTE
SUBJECT: Special Media Reaction: Further Reaction to
Ambassador's January 10 Speech to the American Chamber of
Commerce on Peace Process

REFS: A) Colombo 0054 B) Colombo 0072 C) Colombo 0089


1. (SBU) Summary: The Sri Lankan media over the holiday
weekend continued to analyze the Ambassador's January 10
speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in which he
expressed grave concern over LTTE violence and predicted the
Tigers would face a stronger Sri Lankan military if they
chose to abandon the Ceasefire Agreement. English and
Sinhala media praised the statement but questioned its
effectiveness, highlighting offers of U.S. military
assistance. Independent Tamil media claimed the Ambassador
had overlooked abuses against Tamils by the Security Forces.
The enduring reaction in the local media to a speech with
little new content reflects the tense atmosphere prevailing
now in the country, with observers focusing intently on the
words of the international community. End Summary.


2. (U) Commentators in the government-owned media continued
to express support for the Ambassador's statement, but
inquired whether the LTTE would take it to heart. The
President's Media Advisor and veteran commentator Lucien
Rajakarunanayake, in his weekly "On my watch" column (1/14),
argued the LTTE had not, and would not, heed the message:
"The latest warning, the toughest of its kind so far, has
come from the United States Ambassador to Sri Lanka Jeffery
Lunstead... The U.S. Ambassador's assurance about training
provided to the Sri Lankan armed forces may give some
satisfaction to those harboring doubts about the capability
or preparedness of the Sri Lankan security forces to face up
to the tactics and the vast fire power of the LTTE, but that
is a small comfort in the current context."
Rajakarunanayake contended repeated LTTE attacks following
tough statements by the international community are "a
bloody reminder of the contempt the LTTE attaches to such
warnings."


3. (U) Similarly, in the government-owned Sunday Observer
(1/15) an op-ed titled "Government withstands provocative
attacks," an unidentified "Special Defense Correspondent"
argued the LTTE attack on a Naval bus on January 12 "looks
like a tit for tat act against the United States warning the
LTTE on the previous day... Prabhakaran's decisions in
defiance of America's warning are the best evidence for the
international community to judge the LTTE's terrorism and
non-commitment towards peace through negotiation... [The
attack] would no doubt open the eyes of the Co-Chairs
including the United States to understand that the LTTE's
sole aim is not freedom for the Tamils, but terrorism."


4. (U) Mainstream independent English media drew attention
to the seeming Tiger contempt for the international
community's warnings against continued violence. Daily
Mirror (01/17) columnist Thanuka expressed concern about an
editorial appearing on an unspecified pro-LTTE website that
argued in response to Ambassador Lunstead's statement, "The
LTTE cannot be threatened by words or deeds. The LTTE
fought the Indians 18 years ago. Just stop and think how
far the LTTE has militarily progressed and what progress the
Sinhalese have made in that period." Thanuka contended not
only would the LTTE ignore U.S. warnings, but that it would
express spite against them.


5. (U) The Sinhala nationalist press ranted against the LTTE
but also chastised the United States and the international
community for not doing more to pressure the Tigers. The
editors of the independent Island (01/14),in an editorial
titled "Slapping Uncle Sam," argued, "Foreign powers may see
an opportunity in Sri Lanka's conflict for them to pursue
their hidden agendas in the region. The defiance of the
LTTE stems not from its capability to take on the US or any
of its allies. Instead it stems from the [LTTE's]
confidence that whatever it does, they will not go to the
extent of helping Sri Lanka militarily." The editorial
continued, "The LTTE is running an academy of terrorism,
training terrorists in other countries like the Maoist
guerillas in Nepal. The way it is running rough shod over
the US and other foreign powers must be inspiring to the
terror-minded in the world. Even bin Laden must think he
has a lesson to learn from the LTTE... It is time for the Co-
Chairs to tell the world whether they are for the sovereign
state of Sri Lanka or the LTTE. President Bush told the
world after the 9/11 attacks, `either you are with us or
with them [terrorists]!' Now that the LTTE has asked the US
to go to hell, the Co-Chairs must make up their minds what
to do with the LTTE." The Sinhala-language Diviana, sister
paper to the Island, ran a very similar editorial, arguing,
"Mr. Ambassador, you should be better informed. The Tigers
respond only with bullets and Claymore mines. Don't waste
your words on their behalf."


6. (U) The independent Sinhala press exaggerated the United
States' intention to provide resources and engagement to the
Sri Lankan forces if the LTTE decides to return to war.
Independent Sinhala Sunday Lakbima (01/15) quoted political
affairs analyst Mohan Samaranayake contending "The U.S. has
shown the Tigers that if they won't cease their violence the
US is ready to control them." Independent Sinhala Sunday
Lankadeepa (sister paper to the mainstream Sunday Times and
Daily Mirror) claimed: "America's warning sets example to
other countries too. We salute the American Ambassador who
emphasized the US is not prepared to mollycoddle the Tigers.
Now the other countries also should speak up for peace. All
should realize the LTTE poses a danger to the region and the
world."


7. (U) Independent Tamil media harped on the Sinhala press's
emphasis on U.S. military assistance against the Tigers.
Independent Tamil daily Thinakkural (1/14) carried a
statement by the Buddhist monk-led, Sinhala nationalist
Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) stating: "The U.S. must assist
Sri Lanka with arms and training of our military." In the
Sunday Thinakkural (1/15),Tamil defense analyst Vidhuran
(pseudonym) contended: "At a time the country's security
situation is weak, U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Lunstead's
statement raises doubts whether the chances for peace talks
are fading. By implying the United States would support the
Sri Lanka Military in a war against the LTTE, the Ambassador
may not have realized his words could jeopardize chances for
peace talks and cripple Norway's efforts. America has
failed to realize that Tamil civilians are killed everyday
in the North and East by the security forces in retaliation
to the grenade attacks on them. The Sinhala and English
media give maximum publicity to attacks on the security
forces [and] try to pin the killings of innocent Tamils onto
the LTTE." Flagship Tamil paper, Virakesari (1/15) also
emphasized the promise of U.S. military support in an op-ed,
arguing: "U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Lunstead's speech has made
the government and the Sinhala extremists happy. He has
confirmed the U.S. government would provide training and
military assistance to the Sri Lankan forces but has said
very little about the peace process."



8. (U) Pro-LTTE media emphasized Foreign Minister Managala
Samaraweera's alleged failure in Washington to blacklist the
Tigers and misconstrued the Ambassador's strongly worded
speech. In an op-ed titled, "India and the U.S. trying hard
to stop the resumption of war," pro-LTTE Tamil daily Sudar
Oli (1/16) political analyst M. Thirunavukarasu argued: "The
U.S. did not promise anything big when Sri Lankan Foreign
Minister Mangala Samaraweera visited the U.S. Then, the
U.S. Ambassador made a speech the day after the attack on
the SL Navy boat that killed 13 soldiers. The Ambassador
made three important contentions in his speech, but the
Sinhala and English media prioritized only one issue out of
the three. That is that the LTTE would have to face stronger
Lankan forces. But the Ambassador also mentioned `what kind
of leaders are those who oppose the rights and aspirations
of its people' and aiming his comments at President Mahinda
Rajapakse." (Note: In the speech, the Ambassador questioned
the leadership of the LTTE. End note)


9. (SBU) Comment: As in previous commentary, English and
Sinhala media argued the Ambassador's warnings to the Tigers
were toothless in the face of the organization's
intransigence. Sinhala and Sinhala nationalist media over-
emphasized the promise of U.S. military support. Tamil and
pro-LTTE media decried this misrepresentation by sections of
the pro-Sinhala press, but polarized the issue with
distortions, including redirecting the Ambassador's
criticism of the LTTE's lack of responsible leadership to
President Rajapaksa. Among the Tamil press, the speech
generated defensive Op-Ed's and letters to the editor
arguing the U.S. statement, while correctly denouncing
violence, overlooked legitimate grievances of the Tamil
population. The enduring and sharp reaction to the
Ambassador's speech is interesting given that the address
contained nothing new in terms of U.S. policy or attitudes.
However, the current tense climate and daily attacks have
heated up the war of words as well, and media pundits are
looking closely at what the U.S. says and does. End
Comment.

Lunstead