Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07COLOMBO1025
2007-07-24 02:48:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Colombo
Cable title:
SRI LANKA: REQUEST FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
how-toVZCZCXYZ0001 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHLM #1025 2050248 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 240248Z JUL 07 FM AMEMBASSY COLOMBO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6489 INFO RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC IMMEDIATE RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
C O N F I D E N T I A L COLOMBO 001025
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/23/2017
TAGS: PREL PTER PGOV MASS
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: REQUEST FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
REF: STATE 98031
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires James R. Moore, for reasons 1.4 (b and
d)
C O N F I D E N T I A L COLOMBO 001025
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/23/2017
TAGS: PREL PTER PGOV MASS
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: REQUEST FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
REF: STATE 98031
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires James R. Moore, for reasons 1.4 (b and
d)
1. (C) Charge and Pol Chief met Foreign Minister Bogollagama
on July 20 and informed him according to reftel that the U.S.
could not provide Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to the Sri Lankan
military at this time. Charge explained that the U.S.
interagency process had determined that the targeting and
surveillance functions of the UAVs would augment the ri
Lankan military's offensive capabilities. Heemphasized that
it was U.S. policy to help Sri Lnka combat terrorism, but
not to encourage expandd offensive operations.
2. (C) Bogollagama didnot appear surprised by the decision.
He noted hat Sri Lanka's request was for unarmed UAVs forsurveillance only, not for an armed, lethal capabiity.
Charge reiterated that we understood this, but that it was
the U.S. interagency consensus tha the surveillance and
target identification capailities would facilitate offensive
operations, sch as airstrikes against Liberation Tigers of
Tail Eelam (LTTE) positions in the north. The U.S.
therefore regretted not being able to comply with he
request. Bogollagama accepted the decision, but told us
candidly that Sri Lanka was already trying to acquire UAV
assets elsewhere.
3. (C) Charge then reviewed the state of U.S.-Sri Lankan
security cooperation, especially U.S. 1206 assistance for
maritime interdiction, and particularly the U.S. help on
maritime radars. He assured the Foreign Minister that the
U.S. was prepared to continue to assist Sri Lanka combat
terrorism, in particular for measures that are essentially
defensive in nature. Bogollagama expressed appreciation for
this. He noted that Sri Lanka was especially interested in
any future opportunities to acquire another U.S. surplus
Coast Guard cutter to help with interdiction of Tamil Tiger
arms shipments. Charge said Embassy would inquire again
whether such a vessel might be available.
4. (C) Charge emphasized that security assistance requests
from Sri Lanka were coming under increasing scrutiny, both
within the Administration and especially by Congress. Absent
an improvement in the human rights environment in Sri Lanka,
and in the event of a widening conflict in which the GSL was
taking the offensive, it could become more difficult to
obtain Washington approval for such requests.
MOORE
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/23/2017
TAGS: PREL PTER PGOV MASS
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: REQUEST FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
REF: STATE 98031
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires James R. Moore, for reasons 1.4 (b and
d)
1. (C) Charge and Pol Chief met Foreign Minister Bogollagama
on July 20 and informed him according to reftel that the U.S.
could not provide Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to the Sri Lankan
military at this time. Charge explained that the U.S.
interagency process had determined that the targeting and
surveillance functions of the UAVs would augment the ri
Lankan military's offensive capabilities. Heemphasized that
it was U.S. policy to help Sri Lnka combat terrorism, but
not to encourage expandd offensive operations.
2. (C) Bogollagama didnot appear surprised by the decision.
He noted hat Sri Lanka's request was for unarmed UAVs forsurveillance only, not for an armed, lethal capabiity.
Charge reiterated that we understood this, but that it was
the U.S. interagency consensus tha the surveillance and
target identification capailities would facilitate offensive
operations, sch as airstrikes against Liberation Tigers of
Tail Eelam (LTTE) positions in the north. The U.S.
therefore regretted not being able to comply with he
request. Bogollagama accepted the decision, but told us
candidly that Sri Lanka was already trying to acquire UAV
assets elsewhere.
3. (C) Charge then reviewed the state of U.S.-Sri Lankan
security cooperation, especially U.S. 1206 assistance for
maritime interdiction, and particularly the U.S. help on
maritime radars. He assured the Foreign Minister that the
U.S. was prepared to continue to assist Sri Lanka combat
terrorism, in particular for measures that are essentially
defensive in nature. Bogollagama expressed appreciation for
this. He noted that Sri Lanka was especially interested in
any future opportunities to acquire another U.S. surplus
Coast Guard cutter to help with interdiction of Tamil Tiger
arms shipments. Charge said Embassy would inquire again
whether such a vessel might be available.
4. (C) Charge emphasized that security assistance requests
from Sri Lanka were coming under increasing scrutiny, both
within the Administration and especially by Congress. Absent
an improvement in the human rights environment in Sri Lanka,
and in the event of a widening conflict in which the GSL was
taking the offensive, it could become more difficult to
obtain Washington approval for such requests.
MOORE