US embassy cable - 04COLOMBO54

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000054 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS; NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
 
PLEASE ALSO PASS TOPEC 
 
E.O. 12958:    DECL:  01-12-14 
TAGS: PGOV, PREL, PINS, EAID, PINR, CE, LTTE - Peace Process 
SUBJECT:  Japanese proposal for donor meeting in Colombo 
during upcoming Akashi visit unpopular with other donors 
 
Refs:  Colombo 51, and previous 
 
(U) Classified by Ambassador Jeffrey J. Lunstead. 
Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
1.  (C) SUMMARY:  Japan has proposed that Special Envoy 
Akashi convene a formal "Tokyo Follow-up Meeting" during 
his late-January visit to Sri Lanka.  Both the GSL and 
most, if not all, other donors think a formal meeting is 
not a good idea.  They prefer to see Akashi's visit as a 
prelude to a February Co-chairs meeting in Washington. 
Donors will hash this out January 12 and 13.  The GSL is 
also trying to dissuade Akashi from visiting 
Kilinochchi.  END SUMMARY. 
 
2.  (C) During a January 10 meeting with Prime Minister 
Wickremesinghe and Milinda Moragoda on the political 
situation, (see Reftel), conversation turned to the 
January 19-25 visit of Japanese Special Envoy Akashi and 
an early-February Co-chairs meeting in Washington. 
Donors, including the U.S., had received a fax from the 
Japanese Embassy on Friday, January 9, stating that 
during his visit, Akashi would "convene a second Follow- 
up Meeting of the Tokyo Conference" on January 23.  This 
provoked strong reactions in Colombo.  Dutch Ambassador 
Susanna Blankhart (recently taken over the EU Presidency 
in Colombo, since Ireland has no resident mission here) 
called Ambassador that same afternoon in high dudgeon. 
She said she saw no purpose in such a meeting, since the 
peace negotiations were at an impasse and donors were 
likely to be uncertain what to do.  The Ambassador told 
her that we, the Italian Ambassador who was her 
predecessor representing the EU Presidency, and the 
Norwegian Ambassador had all advised Japanese Ambassador 
Suda several times that we thought a formal follow-up 
meeting would not be helpful during Akashi's visit. 
 
3.  (C) During a January 11 conversation with the PM, 
Milinda Moragoda said that he also thought that a formal 
"Follow-up Meeting," with its attendant communique, 
press conference, etc., would be a bad idea.  Donors 
have a number of serious issues to consider in light of 
the impasse in peace negotiations, and a loosely- 
structured and quickly-prepared meeting in Colombo is 
not the place to deal with them.  In addition, Moragoda 
said, Akashi is planning a trip to Kilinochchi to meet 
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) leadership after 
the proposed Follow-up Meeting.  Milinda said he had 
told Suda that (a) any donor meeting should be informal 
and (b) this was not a good time for Akashi to go to 
Kilinochchi.  Milinda said that Akashi's visit should be 
seen as on-the-ground preparation for the February 
Washington meeting.  Milinda also thought that only the 
U.S. could turn the Japanese around. 
 
4.  (C) Norwegian Ambassador Hans Brattskar made many of 
the same points in conversation with the Ambassador on 
the morning of January 12.  Brattskar felt the issues 
the donors needed to grapple with now were sufficiently 
complicated that they could not be dealt with properly 
in such a meeting.  Brattskar thought it would be 
particularly bad for Akashi to visit Kilinochi after a 
formal donor meeting, since that would put pressure on 
Akashi to convey the "donor position" to the LTTE. 
Brattskar thought it would be far better for Akashi to 
see the LTTE (and the GSL) first and then report to an 
informal donors meeting on what he had concluded.  This 
could then fit into the preparations for a February 
meeting.  Brattskar said that he would call Helgesen and 
suggest Helgesen phone Akashi directly to make these 
points. 
 
5.  (C) Japanese Ambassador Suda had earlier invited the 
large donor group to a meeting on Tuesday, January 13. 
He has now abruptly asked the smaller Co-chairs group to 
a meeting on the afternoon of Monday, January 12.  We 
surmise that he realizes he is in for a rough ride and 
wants to see if he has any support before he confronts 
the larger group.  The trick will be to make him see -- 
and to get him to convey to Tokyo -- that Akashi's visit 
can be useful, but that a formal Tokyo follow-up meeting 
during the visit will not serve that purpose. 
 
6.  (C) COMMENT:  This Akashi visit is following the 
same pattern as the last one in September 2003, in which 
Tokyo proposes to dictate the program without 
consultation.  That prior experience may be one reason 
for the unexpectedly vociferous donor reaction here, 
which is probably not helpful.  Brattskar has commented 
that the EU is quite suspicious of the Japanese trying 
to obtain a larger -- and in the EU view -- unwarranted 
role for themselves.  We will try in the meetings here 
on Monday and Tuesday to steer this gently in the right 
direction so that the Japanese can change course without 
losing too much face.  END COMMENT. 
 
LTTE Calling 
------------ 
 
7. (U) In the meantime, LTTE "Planning and Development 
Secretariat" has sent e-mails to most donors inviting 
 
SIPDIS 
them to a January 19 meeting in Kilinochchi to discuss 
"options and strategies to initiate and coordinate new 
rehabilitation and development programs in the 
Northeast, particularly during the transition period." 
Several donors, including UK and Norway, have already 
accepted this invitation. 
 
8.  (C) The Department may recall that a similar 
invitation to the inauguration of the Planning and 
Development Secretariat in late November 2003caused 
considerable division within the donor community, and 
was eventually cancelled by the LTTE.  This time around, 
a number of donors seem to want to treat this as a 
simple working-level discussion, similar to those they 
have on a bilateral basis with LTTE.  UK High 
Commissioner Evans told the Ambassador that he had 
immediately fired off a positive response "without 
consulting London."  This may be an attempt by the UK 
and others who wanted to attend the original meeting to 
avoid an EU row by pre-emption.  Dutch Ambassador 
Blankhart told the Ambassador January 9 that the issue 
would be discussed at an EU coordination meeting January 
12.  Seems the UK has beaten the others to the punch. 
 
9.  (C) The Department may also recall that the USAID 
Director had received an invitation to the November 2003 
meeting.  The USAID Director, who is currently out of 
town, has received another invite this time around.  We 
do not believe this meeting (which would feature a 
speech by LTTE Political Leader S.P. Thamilchelvam) 
would meet our criteria for meeting with the LTTE at the 
working level for discussion of technical issues only. 
 
10.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
 
LUNSTEAD