US embassy cable - 03COLOMBO47

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000047 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS; NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958:  DECL:  01/08/03 
TAGS: PGOV, PTER, MOPS, CE, NO, TH, LTTE - Peace Process 
SUBJECT:  Day two of talks:  GSL and LTTE agree that 
further discussion of security zone issue is needed 
 
Refs:  (A) Ops Center/Colombo 01/08/03 telecon 
-      (B) SA/INS-Colombo 01/07/03 telecon 
-      (C) Colombo 39, and previous 
 
(U) Classified by Lewis Amselem, Deputy Chief of 
Mission.  Reasons 1.5 (b, d). 
 
1.  (C) SUMMARY:  On day two of talks in Thailand 
(January 7), the GSL and Tamil Tigers began discussing 
the sensitive Jaffna security zone issue.  The two sides 
did not reach agreement on how to handle the zones, but 
they agreed to continue discussing the matter.  On a 
negative note, the Tigers reiterated that they have no 
intention of participating in the de-escalation sub- 
committee until the security zones are dealt with.  The 
talks seem to be going relatively well, but the security 
zone issue is proving problematic.  END SUMMARY. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
DAY TWO:  NO AGREEMENT ON SECURITY ZONES 
---------------------------------------- 
 
2.  (SBU) Day two of talks (January 7) between the Sri 
Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil 
Eelam (LTTE) took place in a "cordial" atmosphere, 
according to the Norwegian government facilitators. 
(Note:  The talks are taking place at a resort hotel in 
the Bangkok area from January 6-9 -- see Reftels.  The 
parties are scheduled to hold a press conference on 
January 10.)  With respect to day two's substance, both 
sides began discussing the sensitive issue of the Sri 
Lankan military's "high security zones" in Jaffna 
District.  They did not reach agreement on how to handle 
the zones during their preliminary discussions.  Anton 
Balasingham, the chief Tiger negotiator, continued to 
make clear that the LTTE wanted to see the zones reduced 
in size.  Balasingham told the press that the LTTE would 
not accept any effort to link a possible military 
withdrawal from the zones with disarmament of LTTE cadre 
wanting to enter them. 
 
----------------------------------- 
SECURITY ZONES REMAIN ON THE AGENDA 
----------------------------------- 
 
3.  (SBU) The two sides did agree to continue discussing 
the security zone issue during the remainder of the 
talks.  (Note:  An outside observer, a retired Indian 
general named Sathish Nambiar, is reportedly producing a 
report on the security zones.  Contacts told Mission 
that the plan is for this report to be presented to the 
parties as a basis for further discussions at the talks 
-- and, if need be, after.)  In the meantime, the two 
sides agreed to work to ensure the return of Internally 
Displaced Persons (IDPs) to non-security zone-located 
points of origin in the north.  Commenting on this 
latter agreement, G.L. Peiris, a key GSL negotiator, 
told the press that the GSL and LTTE "decided to deal 
with the problem of the security zones in a sensible way 
by dealing with things that can be immediately solved 
like displaced person returns to other areas." 
 
--------------------------------- 
LTTE:  SUB-COMMITTEE IS "DEFUNCT" 
--------------------------------- 
 
4.  (SBU) On a negative note, the Tigers reiterated that 
they have no intention of participating any longer in 
the "De-escalation and Normalization" Sub-Committee.  In 
his remarks to the press on January 7, Balasingham made 
clear that he considered the sub-committee "defunct" and 
"useless," specifically adding that the group would not 
be attending a January 14 meeting of the sub-committee 
called by the GSL.  In suspending Tiger participation in 
the sub-committee, Balasingham underlined that the 
Tigers wanted the security zone issue dealt with at the 
political-level talks and he emphasized that Tiger 
participation in those talks was not affected by its 
decision to withdraw from the sub-committee.  He also 
promised that the Tigers would continue to participate 
in the "Immediate Humanitarian and Rehabilitation Needs 
in the North and East" Sub-Committee.  (Note:  Both of 
these sub-committees were formed during the second round 
of talks held in early November.)  For its part, the GSL 
has announced that it wants the de-escalation sub- 
committee to continue its work. 
 
-------- 
REACTION 
-------- 
 
5.  (C) The talks appear to be meeting the expectations 
of Colombo observers.  Kethesh Loganathan of the Center 
for Policy Alternatives, a well-regarded local think- 
tank, told polchief January 8 that it was clear going 
into the talks that the issue of the security zones 
would a difficult one to resolve.  He thought it was 
constructive that the two sides had agreed to continue 
to discuss the issue, while working on other matters, 
such as ways to move forward on developmental assistance 
and resettlement.  Gajen Ponnambalam, a MP for the Tamil 
National Alliance, agreed that it was positive that 
there had not been a breakdown in the talks over the 
security zone issue.  He stressed, however, that the 
issue of the zones was a "vital" one for Tamils that 
needed to be resolved quickly. 
 
6.  (SBU) (((Note:  Both Loganathan and Ponnambalam 
ridiculed press play in government-controlled newspapers 
asserting that the two sides had somehow "settled" the 
security zone issue.  Loganathan said this type of 
coverage was just "spin" by the GSL.  Ponnambalam was 
also mystified by reporting by wire services, including 
Reuters and AP, highlighting the Tigers' decision not to 
participate in the de-escalation sub-committee as if it 
was some sort of major crisis for the peace process.  He 
noted that the LTTE had "clearly signaled" its intent to 
take this action in public comments made last week, 
while it noted at the same time that it still supported 
the peace process.  End Note.))) 
 
7.  (U) (((Note:  In late-breaking news from day three 
of the talks, January 8, wire services are reporting 
that the two sides have agreed to give the World Bank a 
direct role in aid disbursements for the north and 
east.))) 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
8.  (C) Based on what we are hearing, the talks seem to 
be going relatively well.  As expected, the security 
zone issue is proving problematic.  It seems likely that 
the two sides may not be able to agree on a framework 
providing for the resolution of this issue at this round 
of talks.  If they do, however, it would a major 
breakthrough at this point.  While not unexpected given 
its previous public comments, the Tigers' decision not 
to participate in the de-escalation sub-committee was 
unfortunate.  The action highlights just how serious the 
group takes the security zone issue and its willingness 
to pressure the GSL on the matter.  END COMMENT. 
 
9.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
WILLS