US embassy cable - 04COLOMBO210

Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.

Counterterrorism Action Group (CTAG) meeting for Sri Lanka/Maldives

Identifier: 04COLOMBO210
Wikileaks: View 04COLOMBO210 at Wikileaks.org
Origin: Embassy Colombo
Created: 2004-02-06 06:07:00
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Tags: PREL PTER PINR ASEC CE MV
Redacted: This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks.
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 COLOMBO 000210 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS, S/CT, DS 
 
E.O. 12958:        N/A 
TAGS: PREL, PTER, PINR, ASEC, CE, MV 
SUBJECT:  Counterterrorism Action Group (CTAG) meeting 
for Sri Lanka/Maldives 
 
Refs:  (A) Colombo - SA/INS 02/06/2004 fax 
-      (B) State 14279 
 
1.  (U) This message is Sensitive but Unclassified -- 
Please handle accordingly. 
 
2.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  Mission hosted a local-level CTAG 
meeting on February 5.  Mission representatives briefed 
the group on USG efforts, and representatives of the 
other G-8 embassies and Australia and Switzerland also 
briefed on their efforts.  The group agreed on the 
importance of needs assessment of GSL capabilities and 
continued information-sharing.  END SUMMARY. 
 
3.  (U) Per Ref B, Mission hosted a Counterterrorism 
Action Group (CTAG) meeting for Sri Lanka and the 
Maldives on February 5.  The meeting was well-attended 
by representatives of local G-8 embassies plus Australia 
and Switzerland.  DAO, RSO, and Polchief represented the 
U.S. 
 
4.  (SBU) Utilizing Ref B points, Polchief reviewed the 
purpose of the meeting, relating that the U.S. had taken 
over as Chair of CTAG on January 1 and would be hosting 
a capital-level meeting of CTAG members on February 20 
in Washington.  Polchief noted that additional capital- 
level CTAG meetings would be taking place in 2004 and 
that Mission would be calling additional local CTAG 
meetings later in the year. 
 
5.  (SBU) Turning to the specifics of USG 
counterterrorism engagement with Sri Lanka, RSO reviewed 
past State Department Anti-Terrorism Training (ATA) 
programs with the Sri Lankan government (GSL) and future 
plans.  RSO noted that an area of increased focus would 
be community policing.  DAO then reviewed Department of 
Defense counterterrorism programs with the Sri Lankan 
military.  DAO related that these programs included 
individual and unit training, access to military 
professional schools, and funded participation in U.S. 
and multilateral conferences and seminars throughout the 
South Asia region.  Since September 11, 2001, these 
programs had focused specifically on terrorism and 
counterterrorism (CT), and all of them had CT or 
regional security as a major program element.  As part 
of their presentations, RSO and DAO distributed handouts 
detailing State ATA and DoD programs and plans 
(see Ref A). 
 
6.  (SBU) Meeting participants then went around the 
table reviewing the extent of their government's 
counterterrorism engagement with Sri Lanka.  Comments 
included the following: 
 
-- Australia:  The Australian DCM said her government 
was not providing any CT assistance to the GSL.  Most of 
the GoA's assistance was focused on East Asia, SE Asia, 
and the Pacific region, not South Asia.  Australia 
wanted to engage more regarding Sri Lanka, however. 
 
-- Canada:  The Canadian Consular Chief said his 
government was not providing any direct CT assistance to 
the GSL.  Via the Commonwealth Organization, however, 
Canada was assisting in some anti-terrorism financing 
training programs, which Sri Lankans had participated 
in.  Canada was also concerned with immigration issues, 
which it saw as linked with counterterrorism concerns. 
-- European Union:  No direct assistance had been 
provided or was planned for the GSL. 
-- France:  French Embassy Conoff indicated that his 
country provided some police training.  The GoF was very 
concerned about immigration issues. 
 
-- Germany:  No direct assistance had been provided or 
was planned for the GSL. 
 
-- Italy:  No direct assistance had been provided or was 
planned for the GSL.  The GoI was very concerned about 
immigration issues, however. 
 
-- Japan:  The Japanese Embassy representative related 
that the GoJ was committed to helping build the GSL's 
capacity to combat terrorism.  He related that the GoJ 
had invited small numbers of GSL personnel to export 
control, immigration, law enforcement, etc., workshops 
and planned to continue to do so. 
 
-- Russia:  The Russian DCM noted that the GoR had 
signed an anti-terrorism agreement with the GSL at the 
foreign ministerial-level in April 2001.  The two 
countries also had an agreement (also signed in April 
2001) regarding practical CT cooperation, including 
training and technical support (this accord was between 
the FSB and the Sri Lankan police).  The Russian DCM 
remarked that the GSL had never requested CT assistance 
and none had yet been provided by the GoR. 
 
-- Switzerland:  No direct assistance had been provided 
or was planned for the GSL. 
 
-- United Kingdom:  The British Embassy Poloff said HMG 
had held various CT seminars in which Sri Lankans had 
participated.  The Embassy was also involved in police 
reform issues and might assign an adviser to Sri Lankan 
police headquarters. 
 
(Note:  Other than the U.S. side, none of the other 
countries represented at the meeting provided handouts.) 
 
7.  (SBU) After the presentations concluded, 
participants engaged in a brief give-and-take regarding 
CT issues.  The Italian DCM stressed that the Maldives 
was also an area of CT concern for his country given its 
large tourism industry.  Participants agreed to focus 
more on the Maldives in future discussions.  The French 
Embassy representative noted that airport security was 
also a concern for his government.  The Russian DCM 
wondered whether GSL representatives should be invited 
to future meetings.  He also wondered whether there 
should be publicity.  Polchief noted that the U.S. 
Embassy was not planning to publicize the meetings.  RSO 
remarked that perhaps GSL representatives could come to 
future meetings that dealt with discrete CT subjects. 
RSO also emphasized the importance of needs assessments 
and continued information-sharing; participants agreed 
that these were key priorities.  Polchief closed the 
meeting by underscoring that the U.S. Embassy would be 
in touch concerning future local-level CTAG meetings and 
thanked participants for their attendance on short 
notice. 
8.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
LUNSTEAD 

Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04