US embassy cable - 03COLOMBO1713

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001713 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS; NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
 
PLEASE ALSO PASS TOPEC 
 
E.O. 12958:   DECL: 10-02-13 
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, EAID, PREF, CE, LTTE - Peace Process 
SUBJECT:  Tokyo co-chairs agree on modalities for review 
of peace process 
 
Refs:  Colombo 1708, and previous 
 
(U) Classified by Ambassador Jeffrey J. Lunstead. 
Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
1. (U) Tokyo process co-chairs (Japan, EU - Italy, and 
EC, Norway and US) met October 1 for briefing on EU 
Troika meeting in New York on Sept 25 with PM 
Wickremesinghe.  New information from briefing was that: 
 
--Italian Foreign Minister Frattini, on behalf of EU, 
formally offered to host next round of peace talks in 
Rome 
 
--EC Commissioner for External Relations Patten plans to 
visit Sri Lanka Nov 25-26 to discuss "monitoring and 
human rights." 
 
2. (SBU) Norwegian Ambassador Brattskar jumped at 
mention of "monitoring," perceiving that this might be 
an infringement of Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission issues. 
Ambassador Lunstead said that Tokyo Declaration stated 
(para 18) that "the international community intends to 
review and monitor the progress of the peace process 
closely."  Brattskar appeared mollified.  Lunstead then 
noted that para 20 of Tokyo Declaration stated further 
with regard to reviewing and monitoring the peace 
process that "in implementing its own assistance 
programs, the donor community intends to take into 
careful consideration the results of these periodic 
reviews," and that "with full regard to the position of 
Norway as the facilitator, Japan, in cooperation with 
the US and the EU, will undertake necessary 
consultations to establish the modalities for this 
purpose." He wondered, being new in town, what had been 
done for this purpose. He suggested that a working-level 
working group be set up to take on this task, reviewing 
progress in the peace process according to the 
milestones laid out in para 18 of Tokyo.  This would be 
especially useful since the Sept 12 Tokyo follow-up 
meeting had agreed that another follow-up meeting would 
be held at year's end, and that a monitoring and review 
meeting would be held preceding the Consultative Group 
meeting at mid-2004. This complicated question would 
need to be staffed up in a systematic way. 
 
3.  (SBU) Japanese Ambassador Ichiguro (call me "Itchy") 
resisted this idea. He advocated that co-chair 
Ambassadors could do this work themselves or, as a last 
resort, could "bring a working-level person along to 
Ambassadorial meetings."  Persistent pressure from US 
and EU finally persuaded him.  It was agreed that a 
working group would be set up with all major bilateral 
donors initially participating, with multilateral 
institutions perhaps participating later. Itchy 
insisted, however, that this could only move forward 
after being blessed by all major donor Ambassadors, and 
that he could not convene a meeting to do this until 
October 21.  Participants agreed to this meeting. 
Norwegian Ambassador noted that Norway's position was 
different from other co-Chairs, as Norway was a 
facilitator and peace monitor, and that it therefore 
would have to think about whether or in what capacity it 
might participate in the working group. 
 
4.  (C) COMMENT:  This was actually a carefully-scripted 
encounter which US and EU had worked out beforehand. 
There is great unhappiness here in Colombo at Japanese 
unwillingness to coordinate with others on follow-up to 
Tokyo.  This was seen clearly in the Akashi visit and 
Tokyo follow-up meeting last month, where the Japanese 
announced the meeting on short notice and tried to get 
other donors to accept in toto documents prepared in 
Tokyo without prior consultation.  We seem now to have 
agreement on a process to avoid a recurrence of that 
situation.  We will have USAID and Political Section 
both participate in Working Groups. 
5.  (SBU) COMMENT (continued):  On the morning of 
October 2 donors received a letter from the GSL Peace 
Secretariat stating that, as a follow-up to Tokyo 
 
SIPDIS 
Process, the GSL was setting up two committees:  The 
Donor Assistance Coordinating Committee (DAAC) and the 
Programme Management Committee.  First meeting of both 
to be held October 6.  These committees might well be 
useful, if structured properly, but Government action in 
setting them up without prior consultation is 
disturbing.  And it probably would not have happened if 
the Japanese Embassy here, which is supposed to be 
managing the process, had done its job and not left a 
vacuum.  Our position at the Monday meeting will be that 
any new structures will need to be approved by donors 
before they are set up. 
 
6.  (U) ACTION FOR TOKYO:  We understand that Itchy's 
successor was recently approved by the Cabinet, and that 
he is the MFA man at JICA.  Would appreciate any 
information Embassy might have on him. 
 
7.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
LUNSTEAD