SRI LANKA: COMPROMISE ON DEVOLUTION SHOWS SIGNS OF

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001127 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS MCC FOR D NASSIRY AND E BURKE E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/15/2017 TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER PHUM MOPS CE SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: COMPROMISE ON DEVOLUTION SHOWS SIGNS OF UNRAVELING REF: COLOMBO 1103 (AND PREVIOUS) Classified By: Ambassador Robert O. Blake, Jr. Reasons: 1.4(b, d). ¶1. SUMMARY: The deal the President put together on devolution (reftel) has come under fire from Sinhalese hardliners, delaying its approval for at least several days, perhaps much longer. The radical Sinhalese Buddhist monk-based party Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) objected to the compromise, insisting on the "unitary" character of the Sri Lankan state. Other parties in the governing coalition have also raised last-minute objections to All-Party Representative Committee (APRC) chair Tissa Vitharana's attempt at a final draft. According to media reports by some opposition-oriented newspapers, the President has suspended the APRC indefinitely. Vitharana told Ambassador on August 15, however, that he hoped to reconvene the APRC by August 20 and get the process back on track. Sri Lankan Muslim Congress leader Rauff Hakeem told Ambassador that the process was temporarily on hold, but he expected the President to raise the matter with leaders of the coalition parties, perhaps on the margins of the August 15 Cabinet meeting. Hakeem was hopeful that the President would show leadership and "move towards the center" on devolution. End summary. ¶2. (C) The President's compromise proposal on devolution (reftel) has come under fire from the JHU who represent a key constituency of President Rajapaksa's political base. On August 15, the day set by the main opposition United National Party (UNP) as a deadline for wrapping up the APRC's work, media sources close to the opposition reported that the deal had fallen apart, and that the President had suspended the APRC indefinitely. In fact, the monk-based JHU and other small parties represented in the coalition have objected to various aspects of APRC chair Vitharana's "final" draft. The JHU took issue with a new formulation by Vitharana referring to a "single" state, insisting that the character of the state remain "unitary." (Note: the compromise worked out by the Presidnt also had retained the "unitary" terminology. Vitharana's latest, well-intentioned attempt to soften this seems to have backfired.) The Up-Country People's Front (UPF),one of two parties representing Indian-origin Tamils, dissented on the grounds that any solution to the country's ethnic conflict needed to go even further than devolution to the province. The tiny left-wing party MEP objected to the abolition of the executive presidency in favor of a British-style parliamentary model. A breakaway faction of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) said it preferred devolution to the district level. ¶3. (C) The leader of the mainstream SLMC, Rauff Hakeem, was concerned but did not think the situation as dire as portrayed in the opposition media. He told Ambassador on August 15 that the President had now put the APRC process on hold so that he could consult with the leaders of the parties making up his coalition. He thought it likely that the JHU had engineered the latest "hiccup" in the process. Hakeem believed the President was "worked up" about the never-ending debate about whether to substitute a "Westminster model" for the current executive presidency. He believed the President was overly solicitous of the views of the JHU, a relatively minor player in Sri Lankan politics. He hoped the President would continue to "move toward the center," rather than pander to the JHU's radical Sinhalese nationalist views. Hakeem also worried that the recurring idea of consulting the mostly Sinhalese south in a referendum about elements of the devolution plan before any negotiations with the LTTE or other Tamil groups was unworkable. ¶4. (C) APRC chair Tissa Vitharana cast the most recent delay in a more favorable light. He explained to Ambassador that he had submitted one more draft incorporating the most recent COLOMBO 00001127 002 OF 002 changes (ref A) to the APRC. However, two of the parties in the APRC (comment: probably the JHU and the MEP) were not prepared to continue discussions at this point, saying they needed to refer back to their party leaders. Vitharana told us that he planned tentatively to reconvene the APRC on August 20 with a view to ironing out the last-minute differences. He added that far from trying to keep the UNP out of the process, he wanted to draw the opposition back in to the discussion, and had so informed the press. ¶5. (C) COMMENT: The UNP continues to seek a temporary advantage by throwing a monkey wrench into the APRC process, and may well try to use the expiration of their August 15 deadline as an excuse not to re-engage. On the other hand, some of the minor parties in the coalition, by constantly re-opening settled issues, also seem intent on blocking a consensus. Nevertheless, there appears to be a great deal of common ground, shared by parties both in the government and in the opposition, which together represent a huge majority in the Parliament. Embassy will again weigh in discreetly with the major players involved - primarily the President's Sri Lankan Freedom Party and the UNP - to urge them to set aside their partisan jockeying for the good of the country. BLAKE