US embassy cable - 04COLOMBO32

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000032 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS, S/CT 
DEPARTMENT PLEASE ALSO PASS TOPEC 
NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958:  DECL:  01-08-14 
TAGS: PGOV, PREL, PTER, MOPS, CE, LTTE - Peace Process, Political Parties 
SUBJECT:  GSL still a party to the ceasefire with the 
Tigers; PM's remarks do not net a positive reaction 
 
Refs:  (A) Colombo 26, and previous 
 
(U) Classified by Ambassador Jeffrey J. Lunstead. 
Reasons 1.5 (b, d). 
 
1.  (C) SUMMARY:  In the wake of the PM's January 7 
comments calling for the President to take 
responsibility for the ceasefire agreement with the 
Tigers, the ceasefire is still in effect and fears that 
the GSL would withdraw from the agreement have subsided. 
The ceasefire remains intact, as both sides appear to be 
observing the agreement as usual.  A presidential 
spokesman said that the President's position of working 
towards a compromise had not changed following the PM's 
January 7 remarks.  Contacts have told us they see only 
political machinations, and not solutions, in the Prime 
Minister's call for the President to take charge of the 
peace process.  The PM's comments on the ceasefire 
agreement do not seem to have netted him any political 
gain.  END SUMMARY. 
 
2.  (C) INSIGHTS FROM PM'S PARTY:  In the wake of Prime 
Minister Wickremesinghe's January 7 comments calling for 
President Kumaratunga to take responsibility for the 
ceasefire agreement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil 
Eelam (LTTE), the ceasefire remains in effect and fears 
that the GSL would withdraw from the agreement have 
subsided.  (Note:  The PM's remarks to amend the 
ceasefire stem from the President's continuing hold of 
the defense portfolio.)  In making such announcements, 
Navin Dissanayake, a high profile MP in the United 
National Party (UNP), said the PM was being swayed by a 
few party hardliners over the majority of MPs who wanted 
the two leaders to work together.  Dissanayake thought 
that the President had offered some workable solutions 
to the political impasse -- such as making the PM the 
"National Security Minister" -- but that the PM was 
succumbing to pressure from the hardliners which echoed 
his personal desire to remove the President from the 
political scene.  Dissanayake said he believed, in the 
end, the President would most likely not return to the 
PM control of the defense ministry. 
 
3.  (C) NO CHANGE IN CEASEFIRE OBSERVANCE:  The 
ceasefire remains intact, as both sides appear to be 
observing the agreement as usual.  Colonel Sumeda 
Perera, Military Spokesman, told us that there has been 
no change in the security force operations and the 
military continues to observe the mandate of the 
ceasefire.  Agnes Bragadottir, Sri Lanka Monitoring 
Mission spokeswoman, told us there had not been any 
difference in LTTE activities nor any reports of alleged 
ceasefire violations.  As of yet, the Tigers have not 
publicly commented on the PM's remarks.  Gajen 
Ponnamabalam, a member of the pro-LTTE Tamil National 
Alliance, expressed his concern to us about the 
political uncertainty created by the PM's January 7 
remarks about the ceasefire.  He warned that the Tamil 
people would have no other option than to seek a 
separate state if the PM and President can not come 
together over the ceasefire and move forward with the 
peace process. 
 
4.  (C) PRESIDENT'S OFFICE CALLS TO WORK TOGETHER:  In a 
January 8 conversation with poloff, Harim Peiris, 
presidential spokesman, said that President 
Kumaratunga's position had not changed following the 
PM's call for her to take control of the peace process. 
Peiris said the President remains committed to going 
forward with the peace process in a joint manner with 
the Prime Minister.  He added, however, that the 
president's office was "surprised" by the PM's January 7 
remarks, stating there had been no formal Cabinet 
decision or prior discussion with the President to 
request an amendment to the ceasefire.  Peiris said that 
the President's attitude was that the ceasefire had 
continued smoothly for the last two months (since her 
November 4 takeover of the defense and two other 
ministries) and there was no need to amend the agreement 
at this time. 
 
5.  (C) OBSERVERS SEE POLITICAL MOTIVATION:  Contacts 
have told us they see only political machinations, and 
not solutions, in the Prime Minister's call for the 
President to take charge of the peace process.  Kethesh 
Loganathan, an analyst at the Center for Policy 
Alternatives, a local think-tank, told poloff that the 
PM's charge to the President was clearly a political 
move to "put the ball in the President's court" 
regarding the unresolved issue over control of the 
defense ministry.  He did not see the likelihood of the 
President accepting the total control of the peace 
process, but was hesitant to dismiss the idea 
completely.  Separately, Azmi Thassim, director of the 
Chamber of Commerce in the southern coastal town of 
Hambantota, told poloff that he was unhappy with the 
PM's January 7 remarks, as the PM needed to work to 
solve the current political situation, not exacerbate 
it.  The general public, Thassim said, wants peace and 
that will only come from the President and Prime 
Minister working together. 
 
6.  (C) COMMENT:  The PM's comments on the ceasefire 
agreement were presumably intended to remind the public 
of the stark political choices before them and to put 
the President on the defensive, but they do not seem to 
have netted him any political gain.  The President, who 
returns today (January 8) from the SAARC summit, does 
not seem to have risen to the PM's bait.  She continues 
to emphasize publicly her willingness to compromise, 
which seems to strike a sympathetic chord.  END COMMENT 
 
7.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
 
LUNSTEAD