SRI LANKA: PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR WELCOMES CO-CHAIRS

C O N F I D E N T I A L COLOMBO 000127 DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/INS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/29/2018 TAGS: MOPS PREL PHUM PINS CE SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR WELCOMES CO-CHAIRS STATEMENT; DEFENSE SECRETARY LABELS IT "RIDICULOUS" REF: A. COLOMBO 125 ¶B. COLOMBO 124 ¶C. COLOMBO 116 ¶D. COLOMBO 109 ¶E. COLOMBO 108 Classified By: Ambassador Robert O. Blake, Jr., for reasons 1.4(b,d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: On February 4 Presidential Advisor Basil Rajapaksa, after expressing concerns over the description of India's role, privately welcomed the Co-Chairs statement, as did Foreign Minister Bogollagama. On February 5, Defense Secretary Gothabaya Rajapaksa blasted the statement, calling it ridiculous, dismissing calls for a ceasefire and committing the government to achieving nothing short of the unconditional surrender of the LTTE. The Foreign Minister assured the Ambassador that the Defense Secretary's remarks do not reflect GSL views and undertook to put out a positive statement of his own. The Sinhalese press gave widespread coverage to the statement and reported that both the GSL and the LTTE had rejected the contents of the message. TNA members also rejected the Co-Chairs call to disarm. The Bishop of Jaffna welcomed the statement. Some members of the Tamil diaspora were more welcoming of the initiative, while stressing that the international community should do more to protect civilians. End Summary. Presidential Advisor Welcomes Statement -------------- ¶2. (C) The GSL welcomed the statement. President Rajapaksa's brother and chief political advisor Basil Rajapaksa called Ambassador shortly after the statement's release to complain that the statement had said the "Co-Chairs would work with the GSL, India, and the UN and others..." implying that the GSL and India had an equal role to play. He feared the nationalist JVP party, which already is very concerned about India's role, would make further trouble out of this statement. The Ambassador responded that the Co-Chairs could not have worded it differently since we only speak for ourselves and not for India or the UN. Rajapaksa later called back to say the problem was manageable, welcoming the spirit and essence of the statement. The Ambassador said it would be particularly important for the GSL in any statement it issues about the Co-Chair statement to indicate its readiness to resettle the IDPs according to international standards and ensure an inclusive dialogue on a political settlement so �0A;that lasting peace and reconciliation can be achieved. At the Independence Day celebrations on February 4, the Foreign Minister also privately praised the Co-Chair initiative and statement. The Ambassador underlined to the Foreign Minister the need for the GSL to stop firing on the PTK hospital and allow humanitarian pause to evacuate wounded (Ref A has further details). (Note: As of the afternoon of February 5 no public GSL statement had been released praising the Co-Chairs statement.) Defense Secretary Labels Statement "Ridiculous" -------------- -- ¶3. (C) Pro-war daily newspaper The Island ran a front page article on February 5 quoting Defense Secretary Gothabaya Rajapaksa calling the Co-Chair statement "ridiculous." Characterizing the statement, which calls on the LTTE to give up arms, as providing a lifeline to the Tigers, Rajapaksa emphasized that "nothing short of unconditional surrender of arms and cadres could bring an end to the offensive on the Vanni front. "The so-called 'no-fire' period proposed by Co-Chairs to evacuate sick and wounded now trapped in the LTTE-held area would be detrimental to Sri Lanka's efforts to wipe out terrorism," he said. The Co-Chairs move (Rajapaksa) asserted was nothing but a transparent attempt to save the Vanni Tigers. The international community shouldn't hold Sri Lanka responsible for their failure to force the LTTE to allow civilians freedom of movement, (Rajapaksa continued)( The only thing the Co-Chairs got in their statement right was their assertion that there remained probably a short period of time before the LTTE lost control of all areas in the northern theatre." In a February 5 conversation, Foreign Minister Bogollagama assured Ambassador that the Defense Secretary remarks did not reflect GSL's views on the Co-Chairs statement. Ambassador urged the Foreign Minister to put out a statement to correct the record. The Foreign Minister undertook to do so immediately. Sinhalese Press Gives Prominent Coverage -------------- ¶4. (U) The Sinhalese language press gave prominent front page coverage to the Co-Chair's statement on February 4 and 5. On February 5 Divaina characterized the Co-Chair's statement as a request by the international community to accept the LTTE as a political party and to start talking with it. Divaina reported that the GSL had rejected the request since it would allow time for Tiger-supremo Prabhakaran to strengthen his forces. (Note: On November 13 during a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Singh on the sidelines of a SAARC Economic Summit, President Rajapaksa was quoted in the press saying, "the Government will engage in discussions only if the LTTE lays down its arms first, thereby preventing the resumption of another round of terrorism, as has always happened in the past.") Divaina also reported that the Tigers rejected the call to lay down their arms. TNA Expresses Disappointment -------------- ¶5. (C) Pro-LTTE Website TamilNet ran a statement from the Foreign Relations Committee of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA, an elected political party which shares some of the political objectives of the LTTE),in which they expressed their disappointment with the Co-Chairs statement. Asserting that the GSL was deliberately targeting Tamil civilians, the statement labeled the actions a crime against humanity and urged the Co-Chairs to focus on protecting civilians instead of calling on the LTTE to lay down its weapons. In a separate article carried on TamilNet, TNA Parliamentarian Selvarajah Kajendren also attacked the statement, saying that the civilian population was not being prevented from leaving the Vanni but instead had chosen to remain with the LTTE since they "feared worse outside." Kajendren labeled the Co-Chairs "mouthpieces of Rajapaksa" and singled out Norway for special criticism. "Norway has always been claiming that their involvement in the island of Sri Lanka is on the basis of the request of both the parties to the conflict. Norway signing the present Co-Chair statement calling for the surrender of one of the parties, casts serious doubts on its credibility as a trustworthy international peace facilitator. Contrarily, it only paints a picture of it as a handmaid of certain powers." (Note: A Norwegian Embassy Officer reported to Poloff that there had been intense internal discussions within the Norwegian mission over whether they should sign the statement.) Bishop of Jaffna Welcomes Statement -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The Bishop of Jaffna faxed a letter to the Co-Chair Ambassadors welcoming the statement. In his letter the Bishop thanked the Ambassadors for their efforts to open up safe passage for the sick and injured within the Vanni and welcomed the Co-Chairs call on the LTTE to surrender their weapons. Members of Tamil Diaspora Welcome Statement but Urge Greater Efforts to Protect Civilians -------------- ¶7. (U) Ambassador received generally positive messages from members of the Tamil diaspora who were generally supportive of the statement; however, several urged the Ambassador to focus more on protecting civilians than on pressing the LTTE to lay down arms. One e-mail urged the USG to call on the GSL to accept a U.N. Human Rights mission island-wide, since (it stated) the GSL's conduct of the war had destroyed any remnants of legitimacy it might once have had within the Tamil population. ¶8. (C) COMMENT: The disconnect between Basil Rajapaksa's (and the Foreign Minister's) private welcoming of the Co-Chairs statement and the Defense Secretary's public rebuff is indicative of the internal battle within the GSL over how hard a line to take. If the GSL does not accept Ambassador's advice and publicly commit itself to humane treatment and return of the IDP population, the harder line of the Defense Secretary will continue to dominate press coverage of the Co-Chairs' appeal and do little to reassure the LTTE about disarming, or give confidence to the Tamils of the Vanni that they will be protected if they flee Tiger-held territory. The TNA's rejection of the call to disarm, while unwelcome, is likely the result of intense pressure by the LTTE to maintain the line that the Tigers still retain the resources to carry on the fight militarily. Blake