US embassy cable - 04COLOMBO2061

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 002061 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS 
NSC FOR DORMANDY 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/28/2014 
TAGS: PREL, PTER, CE, LTTE - Peace Process 
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: LTTE REJECTS NEW GSL PROPOSALS FOR 
PEACE TALKS 
 
REF: COLOMBO 1920 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Jeffrey J. Lunstead.  1.4 (b,d) 
 
1.  (C) Summary.  In a December 27 conversation with 
Ambassador and U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations 
Professional Staff Member Tim Rieser, Secretary General of 
the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL) Peace Secretariat Jayantha 
Dhanapala explained the latest developments in the peace 
process with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). 
The GSL, through Norwegian peace facilitators, sent the LTTE 
a proposal for resumed peace talks December 20.  On December 
24,  Norwegian Special Envoy Erik Solheim conveyed the LTTE's 
formal rejection of the proposal to Dhanapala.  The Tigers 
were clearly unreceptive to the GSL's new proposals for peace 
talks.  What remains unclear is if the LTTE disliked the new 
provisos the GSL added to a proposal containing a major GSL 
concession--the term Interim Self-Governing Authority (ISGA), 
or if the real problem is, as the LTTE implied, the 
President's inability to rein in her major coalition partner, 
Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP).  End Summary. 
 
2. (C)  In a December 27 meeting with Ambassador and U.S. 
Senate Committee on Appropriations Professional Staff Member 
Tim Rieser, Secretary General of the Government of Sri Lanka 
(GSL) Peace Secretariat Jayantha Dhanapala summarized the 
state of play between the GSL and the Liberation Tigers of 
Tamil Eelam (LTTE).  The Tigers, Dhanapala prefaced, want a 
detailed announcement of any agenda for talks based on its 
much-desired Internal Self-Governing Authority (ISGA) 
proposal--and only after the ISGA is negotiated do the Tigers 
want to discuss the core issues of a political settlement. 
President Kumaratunga, he continued, is willing to negotiate 
on an interim authority, "but clearly not the ISGA." 
Dhanapala noted that after LTTE supremo Velupillai 
Prabhakaran's November 27 LTTE "Heroes' Day" speech (Reftel), 
Norwegian Special Envoy Erik Solheim urged the GSL to "use 
the flexibility" in the Tiger leader's speech to move forward 
with a new proposal.  (Note:  In this speech, Prabhakaran 
said, "If some elements of our (ISGA) proposal are deemed 
problematic or controversial, these issues can be resolved 
through discussions at the negotiating table." End note.) 
 
3.  (C) Dhanapala reported that the Norwegians used one of 
their earlier draft proposals for talks (ostensibly approved 
by the LTTE in July 2004) as the base for the new GSL 
proposal.  Despite his comment moments earlier that the 
President would not negotiate the Tigers' ISGA, Dhanapala 
confided to Ambassador that the December 20 proposal 
"actually said ISGA," but added provisos referencing 
Prabhakaran's more conciliatory language and noted that GSL 
responses "will be discussed and resolved at the table." 
Furthermore, Dhanapala explained, the President authorized 
him to submit the draft on behalf of the GSL without 
consulting her main coalition partner the Marxist Sinhalese 
chauvinist (and strongly anti-ISGA) Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna 
(JVP). 
 
 
4.  (C) According to pro-LTTE website TamilNet, Solheim gave 
the new GSL proposal to long-time LTTE political advisor 
Anton Balasingham in London on December 20.  The Tigers 
publicly rejected the proposals December 24; Solheim conveyed 
the LTTE's formal rejection of the proposal to Dhanapala the 
same day. Dhanapala said he thought the LTTE's rejection of 
the proposal was odd, because it was a draft the LTTE had 
already approved.  He said that Solheim told him that there 
"had been a lot of water under the bridge since July," and 
commented, "clearly they have changed the goal posts again." 
Dhanapala also conveyed frustration that the Norwegians had 
agreed to present to the LTTE a GSL desire for a 
reaffirmation of the Oslo Principle (shorthand for an 
agreement the previous government negotiated to make 
federalism the basis for a political solution to the 
conflict), but had not done so.  After the fact, Solheim 
argued against presenting new proposals and a re-affirmation 
of Oslo at the same time.  According to Dhanapala, Solheim 
wanted to present "one piece at a time," to the Tigers, and 
would present the whole package later.  Dhanapala expressed 
frustration with Solheim's actions and said that the 
Norwegians have a proclivity for finding excuses for the 
Tigers. 
 
 
5.  (C)  Although the GSL's proposals were forwarded to the 
Tigers without fanfare, the LTTE wasted no time publicizing 
its rejection of them.  On December 24 pro-LTTE website 
TamilNet quoted Tiger ideologue Balasingham's response to 
Solheim, "The LTTE... is displeased with (the agenda's) 
structure and contents.  Because of the vague and 
inconsistent attitude articulated by President Kumaratunga on 
the ISGA and the violent opposition expressed by her major 
ally and coalition partner, the JVP, the Tamil Tiger leaders 
insist on a clear, comprehensive agenda, instead of revising 
earlier formulations, definitely specifying that the Interim 
Self-Governing Authority, as proposed by the LTTE, shall be 
the basis for peace negotiations."  Dhanapala said the Tigers 
conveyed the same stance in their communication to him. 
 
 
6.  (C) Comment:  The Tigers were clearly unreceptive to the 
GSL's new proposals for peace talks.  What remains unclear is 
if the LTTE disliked the new provisos the GSL added to a 
proposal containing a major GSL concession--the term ISGA--or 
if the real problem is the President's inability to rein in 
ongoing JVP opposition to a Tiger ISGA.  The usually 
unflappable Dhanapala seemed particularly annoyed at the 
Norwegians and puzzled by LTTE rejection of proposals the GSL 
expected would be acceptable to them. End Comment. 
 
 
7.  (U)  Tim Rieser did not have the opportunity to review 
this cable. 
 
 
 
 
LUNSTEAD