US embassy cable - 05BRUSSELS478

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 000478 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/01/2015 
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, EAID, PHUM, CE, USEU BRUSSELS 
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA CO-CHAIRS MEET IN BRUSSELS, 01/25/2005 
 
 
Classified By: POLOFF SARAH GROEN FOR REASON 1.4(D) 
 
 1. SUMMARY: Co-chairs agreed on a press statement 
emphasizing a strong link between tsunami reconstruction 
process and building confidence to strengthen the peace 
process, but without a direct link to resumed peace 
negotiations.  The Co-Chairs agreed on the need for enhanced 
donor coordination, but there were some differences on degree 
and type of coordination. END SUMMARY 
 
2.  (C) U.S., EU, Japanese and Norwegian delegations met at 
the European Commission in Brussels on January 25 for a 
meeting of the Co-Chairs of the Tokyo Conference.  The 
working lunch and conclusions session were congenial and 
moved quickly under the guidance of EU External Relations 
Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.  The meeting provided an 
opportunity for the participants to share views on the 
situation on the ground in Sri Lanka, discuss next steps, and 
prepare a press release that addressed the tsunami disaster 
and next steps in the peace process. 
 
COORDINATING MECHANISM URGENTLY NEEDED 
====================================== 
 
3.  (C) A main thrust of the meeting was the agreement that 
donors needed to ensure coordination of their assistance 
efforts to avoid gaps and overlaps.  Commissioner 
Ferrero-Waldner strongly supported the idea of a coordinating 
mechanism, and wanted to discuss the concept in the meeting 
and perhaps arrive at a proposal.  The group felt, 
however--and Ferrero-Waldner quickly agreed--that this was a 
proposal that could better be generated by co-chair members 
on the ground in Colombo.  Ambassador Lunstead said this 
topic will be on the agenda at a Co-chairs meeting in Colombo 
next week. 
 
4.  (C) Discussing the subject further, Norwegian Deputy 
Foreign Minister Vidar Helgeson pointed out that because of 
the vast amounts of money involved and the fact that some 
major donors are not included in the Tokyo Conference, its 
utility as a coordinating mechanism for tsunami relief is 
limited.  He also noted the vast sums of money which had been 
raised by NGO's whose activities in the country were largely 
unregulated and not coordinated.  Ambassador Lunstead said 
that one problem in coordination was that the GSL had not 
named one person with enough political clout in overall 
charge to get the various government entities, NGOs, and 
other actors in line.  Yasushi Akashi, head of the Japanese 
delegation, mentioned an informal coordinating group of NGOs 
which already meets in Colombo, and suggested that one or two 
established and well-respected NGOs could take the lead on 
coordinating NGO activities. 
 
THE POLITICAL MESSAGE 
===================== 
 
5.  (C) The Co-chairs were largely in agreement on what the 
political message of the press statement should be: to 
communicate sympathy for the tsunami disaster, pledge 
continued support for reconstruction efforts, and allay fears 
that tsunami relief would be conditional on progress on the 
peace process.  At the same time, they wanted to encourage 
the parties to the peace process to use this opportunity to 
bridge differences and build confidence in each other. 
 
6.  (C) There was much awareness of and discussion about how 
the government and LTTE would read the press release, with 
Ambassador Lunstead noting that Sri Lanka readers would be 
sure to parse it closely for every shade of meaning.  The 
group was very aware of both GSL and LTTE concerns that major 
donors would make tsunami aid contingent on the peace 
process, and wanted the statement to allay those fears.  The 
eventual consensus of the group was that omitting any 
reference to conditionality was enough to address Sri Lankan 
fears about conditionality; the statement did not have to 
explicitly state that tsunami response was unconditional. 
 
7.  (C) Within the context of general agreement, individual 
delegations raised concerns: 
 
--NORWAY:  Wanted to make sure that the word "decentralized" 
was used somewhere in regard to reconstruction efforts, based 
on Norwegian concerns that President Kumaratunga holds power 
much too tightly and refuses to delegate responsibility to 
staffers.  Argued for adequate acknowledgment of the LTTE, on 
the grounds that if they were omitted, they would be offended 
and this could negatively affect the peace process. Pushed 
for enhanced donor coordination mechanism in Colombo. 
 
--JAPAN:  Wanted to ensure that the efforts of the GSL were 
acknowledged adequately in the press release, rather than 
focusing primarily on the work of NGOs and other 
organizations.  Wanted to ensure that the GSL and LTTE were 
not directly equated in the statement in a way that would 
suggest they were equivalent entities.  Thought donor 
coordination in Colombo was good, echoed by US. 
 
--EU:  Initially made a case for including the word 
"unconditional" in the press release in regard to tsunami 
relief, arguing that if the word was not used, the Sri Lankan 
audience would continue to worry that tsunami aid would be 
held up if the peace process did not move forward. 
Ferrero-Waldner decided the word should not be included. 
--U.S.: Had to make sure that the statement was in line with 
the USG's designation of LTTE as a terrorist group. 
NEW PROPOSALS/ACTIONS 
===================== 
 
8.  (C) In his opening remarks, Deputy Foreign Minister 
Helgeson described his meetings with LTTE and GSL leaders in 
Sri Lanka last week, including ongoing negotiations on a 
proposal to create a World Bank-administered fund for tsunami 
assistance.  While the group lauded the Norwegian talks as a 
step forward, both Japan and the U.S. pointed out that they 
would not be able to contribute to such a fund (in the case 
of the U.S., because such funds could end up going to the 
LTTE). 
 
9.  (C) The EU raised the idea of sending a delegation to Sri 
Lanka in the next month or two, but asked for input from 
Colombo-based participants on what timeframe might be 
appropriate.  The delegation might include Commission 
External Relations Director Herve Jouanjean; during the 
working lunch, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner also expressed 
interest in going. (EU has since informed Embassy Colombo 
that Ferrerro-Waldner and Jouanjean will come in early March.) 
 
10. (C) COLOMBO COMMENT: The meeting was cordial and 
productive, with especially quick movement on the statement. 
It was also useful as an opportunity to bring new 
Commissioner Ferrerro-Waldner up to speed on Sri Lanka.  Some 
differences of opinion on how donor assistance should be 
coordinated are becoming evident.  Everyone agreed that 
coordination of these large sums of money to Sri Lanka is 
necessary.  Following themes developed during the visit to 
Colombo the previous week of Norwegian International 
Development Minister Hilde Johnson, the Norwegians described 
donor coordination in Colombo as "poor" and pushed for a 
highly centralized (and in our view unneeded and 
inappropriate) control mechanism.  Johnson described this as 
the "new African model," citing Uganda as an example.  We 
think the differences are greater than the similarities.  We 
do not believe, however, that this will become a major issue, 
as in fact all donors work well together on the ground here. 
END COMMENT 
 
SCHNABEL 
.