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.
| Identifier: | 04COLOMBO271 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 04COLOMBO271 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Embassy Colombo |
| Created: | 2004-02-19 09:51:00 |
| Classification: | CONFIDENTIAL |
| Tags: | PREL PGOV EAID KPAO CE NO JA EU LTTE |
| 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.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 COLOMBO 000271 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, EAP/J, EUR/NB, EUR/ERA NSC FOR E. MILLARD E.O. 12958: DECL: 02-19-14 TAGS: PREL, PGOV, EAID, KPAO, CE, NO, JA, EU, LTTE - Peace Process, Political Parties SUBJECT: Washington donor Co-chairs meeting reaps generally upbeat reaction in Sri Lanka Refs: Colombo 266, and previous (U) Classified by James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of Mission. Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 1. (C) SUMMARY: Media coverage of the February 17 Sri Lanka donor Co-chairs meeting hosted by the Deputy Secretary in Washington is just beginning to flow in. SIPDIS Most local press reaction, thus far, has been straightforward reporting of the Department's press statement with little commentary attached. In the meantime, reaction from political contacts and local observers has been generally positive, with only the radical JVP a bit downbeat. Our strong sense is that the meeting served to remind Sri Lankans that the international community remains concerned with the peace process and is watching closely during this sensitive election timeframe. Septel will follow with additional media coverage. END SUMMARY. --------------------------------- Media Coverage: Still Flowing In --------------------------------- 2. (SBU) Media coverage of the February 17 Sri Lanka donor Co-chairs (the U.S., Japan, the EU, Norway) meeting hosted by the Deputy Secretary in Washington is just beginning to flow in. Thus far, coverage in Sri Lanka has generally been straightforward, featuring all or part of the February 17 statement made by Department Spokesman Ambassador Boucher. The three local English- language papers carried the following front-page stories on the February 17 meeting: -- The independent daily ISLAND topped the page with "Donors call for early return to peace talks." -- The other independent daily, the DAILY MIRROR, stated: "Donors affirm aid pledged: On condition peace process progresses." -- The state-run DAILY NEWS stated: "Donors will continue aid flow to Lanka." Coverage in the Sinhala- and Tamil-language press basically mirrored the coverage in the English-language dailies. 3. (C) The pro-Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) website "TamilNet" carried all of the Department's statement. As far as Mission is aware, however, key LTTE officials -- such as Political Chief S.P. Thamilchelvam and London-based spokesman Anton Balasingham -- have not yet issued specific commentary on the meeting and its results. (FYI. A Tamil MP with close links to the LTTE said he thought the meeting was basically positive -- see Para five.) 4. (SBU) Overall, the Sri Lankan press has not yet provided much by the way of commentary. As news of the event is digested, we would expect some commentary pieces to appear in February 20 newspapers and in the weekend press. (Septel will provide a synopsis of media reaction.) ------------------ Political Reaction ------------------ 5. (C) In the meantime, there has been no official reaction from President Kumaratunga's office, or from Prime Minister Wickremesinghe's. As reviewed below, however, reaction from political contacts in the major parties has been generally positive (except for the JVP, which -- as expected -- was a bit downbeat: see below). Snippets include the following: -- Dinesh Gunawardena, a senior MP in President Kumaratunga's People's Alliance (PA) party, told poloff that, like many of his PA colleagues, he was appreciative of the February 17 statement. He was "especially reassured" by the four Co-chairs' commitment to continue assistance to Sri Lanka, as aid was crucial for peace. Adding that he always was thankful for U.S. positioning on human rights and democracy matters, Gunawardena said he looked forward to helping strengthen Sri Lanka's relationship with the U.S. should his party win the April 2 parliamentary elections. -- Keheliya Rambukwella, a senior United National Party (UNP) MP and former minister, told Pol FSN that he thought the statement was very clear in urging a rapid resumption of peace negotiations with the Tigers. Rambukwella said it was positive that the statement also urged Sri Lanka's political parties to continue exploring ways to work together in moving the peace process forward. -- M.L.A.M. Hizbullah, an MP in the Muslim National Unity Alliance (NUA), told us that he thought the Co- chairs meeting was quite helpful. He said it was important that aid should flow to the north and east. Regardless of which party was in control in Colombo, he said he felt that assistance funds should be provided as they would benefit the country and peace. -- N. Raviraj, an MP for the generally pro-LTTE Tamil National Alliance, told Pol FSN that the Co-chairs' statement was positive and would help the situation in Sri Lanka. He thought, however, that the Sinhalese parties in the south felt that assistance was their right and there was no need to spread it around much to the war-torn north/east. This was unfortunate, Raviraj said, and he hoped that the parties in the south would stop battling each other long enough to consider how important the peace process was and how much assistance was truly needed in all parts of the country. 6. (C) The only somewhat negative reaction that Mission picked up was from the radical Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party. In a meeting with polchief on February 19, Somawansa Amarasinghe, a key JVP leader who recently returned to Sri Lanka after years in the UK, related that he thought that the statement was "as fine as far as it went." Amarasinghe said he would have wished that the statement was harder on the LTTE, which he said had not proved itself "sincerely committed to the ceasefire accord." Polchief countered that statement was evenly balanced, urging the LTTE to act "responsibly," for example. Amarasinghe added that he was a bit worried because Norway had been involved in crafting the statement. The JVP did not believe that the GoN was "fully neutral" and thought that it might be "favoring the LTTE." Polchief responded that Norway took great care in managing its role as facilitator and was in fact neutral as to the parties. -------------- Other Reaction -------------- 7. (C) Local think-tank and civil society observers were supportive of the statement, feeling that it struck an appropriately balanced tone. Some reaction from these quarters follows: -- In a conversation with poloff, Jehan Perera, Director of the National Peace Council, a local civil society group, said he thought that the Co-chairs' statement was reassuring on the need to move forward with humanitarian assistance in light of local worries over the upcoming election. He felt, specifically, that the Co-chairs' comment that future development aid would be conditional on progress in the peace process served as an important notice to Sri Lanka's political parties to be restrained in their language during the campaign. -- Hitting on many of the same points as Perera, Kethesh Logananthan from the Center for Policy Alternatives, a local think-tank, told poloff that he thought the message sent by the Co-chairs was a positive one. Sri Lankans would appreciate the international concern over the situation in the country and the commitment regarding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Equally important, he said, was the reminder that major development assistance remained contingent on progress in the peace process. ------- COMMENT ------- 8. (C) Our strong sense is that the February 17 meeting served to remind Sri Lankans that the international community remains concerned with the peace process and is closely watching during this sensitive election timeframe. In pressing this message, the timing of the meeting was excellent, coming just before the onset of the effective start of the election campaign (when Sri Lankans will quickly tune out all things not political). Whether Sri Lankans heed the international community's message is as yet unclear, of course. Certainly, as could be seen in the general thread of the JVP's comments, there are those who do not particularly appreciate the foreign concern with Sri Lanka and apparently remain willing to say things during the course of the campaign that might hurt the peace process. END COMMENT. 9. (U) Minimize considered. LUNSTEAD
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04