SRI LANKA: ICRC ROLE INCREASINGLY UNCERTAIN,

C O N F I D E N T I A L COLOMBO 001059

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR PRM AND SCA/INSB; GENEVA FOR RMA; KATHMANDU
FOR REFCOORD

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2019
TAGS: PGOV PREL PREF PHUM CE
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: ICRC ROLE INCREASINGLY UNCERTAIN,
REHABILITATION ON HOLD

Classified By: CHARGE D'AFFAIRES VALERIE C. FOWLER. REASONS: 1.4 (B, D
)


1. (C) SUMMARY: In a November 12-16 visit to Sri Lanka on a
range of post-conflict humanitarian issues, PRM Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS) Sam Witten discussed the
situation of LTTE ex-combatants (including rehabilitation
programs) in separate meetings with Minister of Justice
Milinda Moragoda; the International Organization for
Migration (IOM); and the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC). Significantly, despite many meetings and
communiqus, the ICRC did not appear close to securing
Government of Sri Lanka (GSL) support for its core protection
mandate activities as of November 16, and thus its future
presence in Sri Lanka appeared uncertain. The U.S. and other
donors remain unwilling to support financially an IOM-led
ex-combatant rehabilitation program without an ICRC
protection monitoring presence in the centers, increasing the
likelihood that the Government's rehabilitation program would
not receive robust donor support. END SUMMARY.

ICRC: NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUING
--------------

2. (C) On November 13, PRM PDAS Witten met with Paul
Castella, ICRC Head of Delegation to Sri Lanka, who provided
an update on efforts to negotiate with the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (MFA) on continued ICRC operations in Sri
Lanka. Castella noted that ICRC had outlined two areas it saw
as core ICRC activities in Sri Lanka on which it was
unwilling to compromise: 1) access to all places of detention
throughout Sri Lanka, which is essential for ICRC
investigations into disappearances and extrajudicial
killings; and 2) access to prisons and ability to conduct
visits. On August 25, ICRC submitted a framework document
outlining its proposal for activities in the post-conflict
period to the MFA. According to Castella, the Foreign
Secretary responded to the framework submitted with a
counterproposal that eliminated all references to
international humanitarian law and ICRC mandates and which
cut all protection-related activities. While the Foreign
Secretary noted to ICRC that the protection part of its
activities was "a problem for us", the Secretary of Defense
Gotobaya Rajapaksa separately advised Castella that he had no
issue with ICRC's protection mandate. It was unclear to ICRC
whether this impasse could be resolved. ICRC noted that
discussions with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would
continue the week of November 16. Castella said he would
inform Ambassador Butenis of the outcome. ICRC was not
currently seeking active U.S. advocacy on its behalf, but
suggested it would be appropriate for the U.S. to "mention"
the issue in its meetings.

MORAGODA: ICRC IMPASSE AT A "POLITICAL LEVEL"
--------------


3. (C) PDAS Witten met with Minister of Justice Milinda
Moragoda on November 15. The Justice Ministry oversees the
Commissioner General for Rehabilitation, who is directly
managing the rehabilitation effort. Moragoda repeated
figures of some 11,000 separated ex-combatants in
rehabilitation centers. Separately, 796 "hardcore"
ex-combatants were being held under individual detention
orders and would be prosecuted in the courts. PDAS Witten
raised concern that ICRC and the Government had not reached a
successful outcome that would permit ICRC monitoring access
to the rehabilitation centers. In referring to donors'
funding condition requiring ICRC access to rehabilitation
centers, Moragoda noted, "the ICRC issue is becoming the
biggest challenge for us." He cited his own efforts to
advocate for ICRC within the Government, but said that the
issue was "stuck" at a political level and would take time to
navigate. Moragoda lauded IOM's approach, noting that they
had been able to work successfully with the Government
without becoming embroiled in political issues. Moragoda
expressed strong concerns about the impact the ICRC issue
would have on implementing the rehabilitation program.

IOM: SOME ACCESS BETTER THAN NONE?
--------------


4. (C) On November 15, PDAS Witten met with IOM Chief of
Mission Mohammed Abdiker and Deputy Chief of Mission Aurela
Rincon. Abdiker detailed IOM's success in working fruitfully
with the Government, particularly on the current large-scale
returns of internally-displaced persons and with a
rehabilitation program for some 1,000
ex-combatants/surrenderees in three sites in the East. IOM
had been in discussions with the Government on replicating

this program in the North, replete with ICRC access. Since
early July 2009, however, ICRC had not had access to the
Government's rehabilitation sites, and donors such as the
United States had been reluctant to provide financial support
for IOM's program in the North without ICRC monitoring.
According to Abdiker, IOM was asking its Geneva office to
decide whether, under the present circumstances, IOM should
pull out of providing technical assistance for the
rehabilitation centers. (NOTE: IOM also called a November 17
meeting with donors in Colombo, to be reported septel. END
NOTE.) Abdiker and Rincon expressed their concern that if
the ICRC issue were not resolved soon, IOM would not be able
to support the rehabilitation centers, and therefore there
would be no international involvement at all in the
rehabilitation program. IOM reiterated Moragoda's comments
that the ICRC impasse was at a political level, and would be
difficult to overcome. IOM suggested ICRC consider other
groups that could take on a monitoring function, such as
Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) or the national Sri Lankan
Red Cross Society.

COMMENT
--------------


5. (C) PDAS Witten raised the importance of ICRC access at
every appropriate opportunity during his November 12-16
visit. From all indications, there is a chasm between the
ICRC's statement of core protection mandate activities and
what activities the GSL is comfortable permitting. It is
unlikely that this impasse will be resolved soon. While Post
does not see any adequate replacement for ICRC in monitoring
ex-combatant rehabilitation centers, it will continue to
confer with ICRC and with other donors on the way forward.
FOWLER