US embassy cable - 05COLOMBO648

C O N F I D E N T I A L COLOMBO 000648 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/01/2015 
TAGS: KIRF, PHUM, CE, Religious Freedom 
SUBJECT: FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS ANTI-CONVERSION BILL WILL 
NOT GO TO PARLIAMENT. 
 
REF: (A) COLOMBO 606 (B) STATE 59616 
 
Classified By: AMBASSADOR JEFFREY J. LUNSTEAD FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND ( 
D). 
 
1.  (C) Prior to receipt April 1 of ref b directing post to 
demarche GSL on proposed anti-conversion legislation, 
Ambassador had raised issue with Foreign Minister 
Kadirgamar on March 28 (ref a).  Ambassador then discussed 
issue twice with Foreign Minister on afternoon of March 31 
and with Foreign Secretary Palihakkara on evening of March 
31.  Following receipt of ref b, Ambassador again talked to 
Foreign Secretary on April 1. 
 
2.  (C) Following that discussion, Foreign Minister 
Kadirgamar telephoned Ambassador April 1 to say that he had 
raised the issue with President Kumaratunga the previous 
evening, mentioning specifically his conversations with 
Ambassador.  Kumaratunga had told him to relay specifically 
to the US that she had no intention of allowing the Bill to 
go to Parliament.  Kadirgamar said that the President had 
told him that she was not present at the Cabinet meeting 
where the decision was taken to move the Bill. 
 
3.  (C) Ambassador thanked Kadirgamar for this news and 
asked him what he thought we should say to the many people 
who were enquiring about this issue.  Kadirgamar said we 
could say that we had been informed that the Government of 
Sri Lanka had no intent to move the Bill to Parliament.  We 
should not mention the President's personal role. 
Ambassador asked how the President would accomplish this, 
since the Cabinet had already agreed to send the Bill. 
Kadirgamar said the President would take care of that, and 
that the Buddha Sasana Minister, who would have to present 
the Bill in Parliament, "is a loyalist." 
 
4. (C) Kadirgamar continued that Sri Lanka did face a 
genuine issue in that induced conversions were taking 
place.  Ambassador replied that he believed the Government 
should take a positive and pro-active role in defusing this 
issue, perhaps by assisting in the formation of an Inter- 
Religious Council, where religious leaders could work 
together in areas such as a voluntary code of conduct. 
Kadirgamar agreed this would be a good idea.  Ambassador 
said, however, that no matter what steps were taken, there 
would still be some groups which would proselytize and 
attempt to convert people, and Sri Lanka would have to 
realize that.  By taking positive steps to build religious 
understanding and harmony, however, the impact of such 
actions could be minimized. 
 
5.  (C) Shortly after the conversation, Papal Nuncio called 
on Ambassador in a pre-scheduled appointment.  Nuncio 
elaborated on the Catholic Church's great concern about the 
bill, stating that it would create a "climate of fear," 
especially for an institution, like the Catholic Church, 
which was heavily involved in social welfare activities. 
Ambassador shared substance of conversation with Foreign 
Minister, which greatly relieved the Nuncio.  Ambassador 
and Nuncio also discussed the possible formation of an 
Inter-Religious Council, and Ambassador suggested that 
church leaders not wait for government to take the lead on 
this issue. 
 
6.  (C) COMMENT: We take the President's statements, as 
relayed through the Foreign Minister, at face value.  We 
are still not sure what happened here and why the Cabinet 
took up the matter when it did.  Other reports have said 
that the President was present at the Cabinet meeting--now 
we hear she was not.  It is possible she had earlier agreed 
to move the bill in a political calculus involving the 
votes of the JHU (Buddhist monk) members of Parliament. 
Our subsequent protests and warnings of potential 
consequences may have forced her to re-evaluate the 
calculus.  Or it all may have just been a mistake.  We 
agree that our comment to concerned parties should simply 
be that we have been informed that that the Government of 
Sri Lanka has no intention of bringing the Bill before 
Parliament.  We should not link this specifically to the 
President.  The immediate issue of concern appears to be 
resolved for the moment, but we will continue to monitor 
this closely. 
LUNSTEAD