US embassy cable - 03COLOMBO720

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 COLOMBO 000720 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, S/CT 
NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
LONDON FOR POL/RIEDEL 
 
E.O. 12958:  DECL:  04-28-13 
TAGS: PGOV, PTER, PREL, PINS, KPAO, CE, LTTE - Peace Process 
SUBJECT:  Tigers issue constructive response to U.S. 
statement re their pullout from talks 
 
Refs:  (A) FBIS Reston Va DTG 260646Z APR 03 
 
-      (B) Colombo 715, and previous 
 
(U) Classified by Ambassador E. Ashley Wills. 
Reasons:  1.5 (b, d). 
 
1.  (C) SUMMARY:  Late April 25, chief Tamil Tiger 
negotiator Anton Balasingham issued a direct response to 
the April 24 U.S. statement re the group's pullout from 
the peace talks.  Balasingham's statement underscored 
that the Tigers still support a negotiated settlement to 
the conflict and said the group supported an "open 
market economy based on liberal democratic values."  We 
agree with observers that the LTTE's reaction to our 
statement was constructive.  Suggested "if asked" press 
guidance is contained in Para 7.  END SUMMARY. 
 
---------------------- 
Latest Tiger Statement 
---------------------- 
 
2.  (U) Late April 25, London-based chief Liberation 
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) negotiator Anton 
Balasingham issued a direct response to the U.S. 
statement re the group's April 21 pullout from the peace 
talks.  (Note:  See Ref B for the text of the U.S. 
statement issued on April 24, which took the form of 
Ambassador Wills' response to a series of questions.) 
Balasingham's remarks, which are contained in Para 8, 
were in question-and-answer format (like the U.S. 
statement).  Balasingham made the following key points 
in his remarks: 
 
-- Support for Negotiated Settlement:  The first part of 
the statement goes out of its way to underline that the 
LTTE has not terminated the negotiating process.  On 
this point, Balasingham states:  "We have not scuttled 
the peace process...We have no intention of running away 
from the negotiating process."  The statement stresses 
that the Tigers want to see progress on several issues 
by the GSL, including regarding the delivery of 
humanitarian assistance and the reduction in size of the 
Jaffna security zones.  In light of these outstanding 
issues, Balasingham states that "Our decision to 
temporarily suspend negotiations giving time for the 
government to act is a fair and rationale form of 
protest." 
 
-- Renouncing Terrorism and Violence:  In its second key 
section, the statement asserts that the LTTE has 
"already abdicated all acts of armed violence ever since 
we signed the ceasefire agreement."  Re disarmament, 
Balasingham indicates that this can only be considered 
at a later stage in the peace process, stating "The 
ethnic conflict is not yet resolved and the threat of 
Sinhala military aggression of Tamil lands is not yet 
over.  Under these circumstances, decommissioning or 
abdication of arms is non-negotiable."  The statement 
goes on to note that even under the terms of a 
negotiated settlement Tamils might "need a security 
system that would permanently ensure the protection" of 
their rights. 
 
-- Nature of Economic Problems:  Balasingham admits that 
past LTTE attacks "had disastrous effects on the 
island's economy."  That said, Balasingham goes on to 
assert -- as he did in his April 21 statement regarding 
the LTTE's pullout from the talks -- that actions (bad 
economic planning, corruption, etc.) by "successive" Sri 
Lankan governments are the root cause of poverty in the 
south, not the war.  Thus, he continues, the focus of 
international assistance efforts should be on the war- 
torn north and east, and not the south. 
 
-- General Economic/Political Stance:  Balasingham makes 
clear that the Tigers support an "open market economy 
based on liberal democratic values."  Continuing, he 
notes that further details on Tiger economic/fiscal 
policies "would have to be worked out...in the final 
framework of a system of federal government at a later 
stage." 
 
-------------------------- 
Reaction to LTTE Statement 
-------------------------- 
 
3.  (C) Reaction to the LTTE statement has been quite 
positive.  The Ambassador's April 26 meeting with 
Minister G.L. Peiris, the government's chief negotiator, 
illustrates this.  Peiris began the meeting by 
expressing deep distress over the peace process 
(Note:  Peiris' private concerns were markedly different 
from the upbeat posture he has maintained in public -- 
see Ref B.)  Peiris visibly brightened, however, when he 
received a phone call from visiting Norwegian envoy (and 
former ambassador to Sri Lanka) Jon Westborg, who 
stressed that he thought that Balasingham's comments 
were quite constructive and could indicate a softening 
in the LTTE's position re the peace talks. 
 
4.  (C) Westborg was quite explicit on this point in an 
April 28 meeting with the Ambassador, underlining that 
he thought that Balasingham's comments represented a 
sharp shift in tone away from the Tigers' harsh April 21 
rhetoric pulling out of the talks.  In explaining the 
change in tone, Westborg commented that the Tigers seem 
to have received strong signals from the international 
community, especially via the U.S. statement on 
April 24, that it should not go too far.  (Note:  FYI. 
Westborg and newly arrived Norwegian Ambassador Hans 
Brattskar plan to travel to the LTTE-controlled Wanni 
region on April 30 to meet Tiger political chief S.P. 
Thamilchelvam.  The key topics on the agenda will be 
ways to get the talks re-started and the Tokyo 
conference slated to take place in June, which the LTTE 
has said it will not attend.  The Norwegians plan to 
press the LTTE to change its mind and confirm its 
participation in Tokyo as soon as possible, so that 
planning for the meeting can go forward.  End Note.) 
 
5.  (C) Other local reaction has been equally positive. 
Nanda Godage, an official at the GSL Peace Secretariat 
and former ambassador, told polchief April 27 that he 
thought the U.S. statement had "definitely prodded the 
LTTE to proceed in a more conciliatory manner."  Godage 
said he hoped that the LTTE' April 25 statement presaged 
a positive response to Prime Minister Wickremesinghe's 
formal response to the LTTE's pullout from the talks, 
which was scheduled to go out some time this week.  In 
addition, poloffs were told by G. Ponnambalam, a Tamil 
National Alliance MP, that he thought that the LTTE's 
latest statement indicated that the group was still 
strongly committed to the peace process.  All the Tigers 
wanted, he asserted, was for positive changes on the 
ground, especially the reduction in the size of the 
military's security zones in Jaffna.  The group 
definitely did not want a return to armed struggle, he 
concluded.  (Note:  Septel contains additional media 
reaction to the April 24 U.S. statement.) 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
6.  (C) We agree with observers that the LTTE's reaction 
to our statement was constructive.  As noted above, 
Balasingham's tone seemed much more moderate and less 
sharp than it had been in his April 21 letter to the 
prime minister suspending the talks.  Moreover, the fact 
that the LTTE emphasized its continued support for a 
negotiated settlement was good news.  It was also 
positive that the group said it supported an "open 
market economy based on liberal democratic values."  As 
far as we are aware, this is the first time the group 
has said that.  On the negative side of the ledger, 
Balasingham took a hard-line stance re disarmament, 
indicating that any discussion of this key subject would 
be kicked down far, far down the road.  Even in light of 
the apparent change of tone by Balasingham, our guess is 
that the Norwegians and the GSL have a fair amount of 
work to do to get the peace process back on track. 
Their efforts won't be easy --  the Tigers seem to be 
driving a hard bargain, almost as if they figure the 
government has no choice but to meet their demands 
eventually.  END COMMENT. 
 
------------------------ 
Suggested Press Guidance 
------------------------ 
 
7.  (SBU) Suggested "if asked" press guidance follows: 
 
Question: 
 
What is the U.S. reaction to the April 25 remarks by 
Tiger negotiator Balasingham? 
 
Answer: 
 
We read the remarks by Mr. Balasingham with great 
interest.  We continue to urge the Tigers to return to 
the peace talks and to confirm their participation in 
the Tokyo donors conference scheduled to take place in 
June as soon as possible. 
 
------------------------------- 
Text of April 25 LTTE Statement 
------------------------------- 
 
8.  (U) As carried by the pro-LTTE website TamilNet, the 
text of the LTTE's April 25 statement by Anton 
Balasingham follows: 
 
Begin text: 
 
April 25 
 
>> TamilNet:  Mr. Ashley Wills, the US Ambassador to Sri 
Lanka, in a comprehensive interview with Reuters, ahs 
presented a critical review of the LTTE's position as 
set out in your letter to the Prime Minister Mr. Ranil 
Wickremesinghe.  What, in your view, is the central 
thrust of this argument?  Do you agree with him? 
 
>> Mr. Balasingham:  Mr. Wills' central contention is 
that the LTTE should continue to engage the Government 
of Sri Lanka to address grievances rather than walking 
away from talks.  There is an element of 
misunderstanding here with regard to our position.  We 
have not terminated the negotiating process or walked 
away from talks.  What we have decided is to temporarily 
suspend the talks to provide time and space for the 
government to implement crucial decisions, particularly 
the normalization aspects of the Ceasefire Agreement. 
We have not scuttled the peace process or terminated 
negotiations.  We intentionally created an interval, an 
interregnum for the government to take immediate and 
constructive measures to address urgent humanitarian 
issues faced by the Tamils.  We have taken the talks 
very seriously and the implementation of the decisions 
at the talks more seriously.  Our intention is to 
pressurize the government to realize the urgency of the 
existential issues confronting our people and to impress 
upon them the importance of fulfilling obligations, 
pledges and decisions.  The internally displaced and the 
refugees have been languishing in refugee camps and 
welfare centres for more than ten years.  Obligations 
under Ceasefire Agreement have not been fulfilled for 
nearly fifteen months.  Our pleas for the last six 
months during sessions of talks, to resolve the issue of 
resettlement have not been taken seriously.  I don't 
think Mr. Wills has understood the frustrations and the 
enormous suffering of the uprooted Tamils.  The 
Ceasefire Agreement is a serious commitment by the 
parties in conflict, not only to cease armed 
confrontations but to create conditions to restore 
normal life to the Tamil civilian population also.  The 
Sri Lankan armed forces have yet to fulfil their 
obligations under the truce and continue to violate the 
fundamental rights of the refugees to return to their 
homes and villages.  This is the problem in a nutshell. 
We are representing the interest of our people.  As the 
representatives of our people we reserve the right to 
express our displeasure if decisions at the talks are 
not implemented and bilateral agreements are not 
fulfilled.  Our decision to temporarily suspend 
negotiations giving time for the government to act is a 
fair and rational form of protest.  We wish to assure 
Mr. Wills that we have no intention of running away from 
the negotiating process or `pulling out of the talks' as 
he puts it.  We have reiterated our commitment to seek a 
negotiated settlement in our letter addressed to Mr. 
Wickramasinghe. 
 
>> TamilNet:  Mr. Ashley Wills has reiterated the usual 
American position that the LTTE should renounce 
`terrorism and violence' to be accepted and respected by 
the international community.  He further says that the 
possession of weapons and the maintenance of armed 
formations by the LTTE are not going to protect Tamil 
rights but rather will prolong the conflict.  What is 
your comment on this position? 
 
>> Mr. Balasingham:  Mr. Wills as well as Mr. Armitage 
have always advocated the renunciation of `terrorism and 
violence' by the LTTE.  The Americans are well aware 
that our organization has already abdicated all aspects 
of armed violence ever since we signed a Ceasefire 
Agreement.  Yet we do have military formations to 
protect our lands and our people.  The ethnic conflict 
is not yet resolved and the threat of Sinhala military 
aggression of Tamil lands is not yet over.  Under these 
circumstances, decommissioning or abdication of arms is 
non-negotiable.  The majority of the Tamil people will 
not agree with Mr. Wills' perception that the 
maintenance of armed formations by the LTTE would not 
protect the Tamil rights but rather create conflicts. 
On this issue the Tamils seriously differ with Mr. 
Wills.  Our people have suffered bitter historical 
experience of state terror and oppression extending over 
decades.  The Tamils resorted to armed resistance as the 
last resort to defend their right to existence.  Having 
gone through turbulent periods of state repression and 
armed resistance, of failed negotiations and betrayals, 
the Tamil people have genuine fears and anxieties with 
regards to their safe and secure existence.  The Tamils 
are seeking, not only substantial political autonomy but 
also a security system that would permanently ensure the 
protection of their right to live peacefully with 
dignity and freedom in their historically given 
homeland.  I sincerely hope that the Americans will 
appreciate and understand the aspirations as well as 
apprehensions of a people who have faced genocidal 
oppression from State terrorism and violence. 
 
>> TamilNet:  Mr. Wills argues that your theme that the 
economic deprivation of the south and the devastation of 
the northeast could not be blamed entirely on Colombo's 
misguided policies.  He says that the LTTE's violent 
`separatist agenda' was also a contributory factor for 
the impoverished conditions of the south.  What do you 
say? 
 
>> Mr. Balasingham:  Mr. Wills agrees that successive 
Sri Lankan governments have made blunders.  I stand by 
my view that the economic chaos of Sri Lanka is self- 
inflicted in the sense that disastrous militaristic 
policies based on heavy international borrowing coupled 
with bad governance, bureaucratic inefficiency and 
widespread corruption were the contributing factors for 
the collapse of the economic system.  I do not deny the 
fact that the LTTE's defensive war campaigns that 
included strikes at the state's economic targets had 
disastrous effects on the island's economy.  The LTTE's 
armed struggle can only be characterized as reactive 
violence against state violence, a form of resistance 
against intolerable repression.  Mr. Wills, who should 
be familiar with the evolutionary history of the armed 
resistance movement of the Tamils knows very well that 
successive Sri Lankan governments, until the assumption 
of the present regime, adopted rigid militaristic 
policies that intensified the conditions of war which 
brought colossal destruction of the Tamil nation and led 
to the economic collapse of the Sinhala nation.  Apart 
from the causal problems of the conflict Mr. Wills will 
certainly agree that poverty and deprivation prevailing 
in the northeast are far worse than that of the south. 
 
>> TamilNet:  Mr. Ashley Wills suggests that the LTTE is 
expecting to much too soon by way of a peace divided, 
that `Rome wasn't built in a day' as he put it.  How do 
you respond? 
 
>> Mr. Balasingham:  There are two distinct issues here; 
first, the urgent and immediate problems faced by the 
Tamil people and secondly, the long-term economic 
development of the Tamil areas.  The two should not be 
confused.  As I have said, our present concern and 
intention is to pressurize the government to realize the 
urgency of the existential issues confronting our 
people.  Hundreds of thousands of Tamils are being 
prevented from returning to their homes due to ongoing 
military occupation.  The infrastructure of the Tamil 
areas, where the conflict has been raging, has been 
completely destroyed.  We do not accept that the 
resettling of the displaced people and refugees, the 
restoration of normalcy or the rehabilitation efforts 
are matters to be addressed in the course of time.  We 
have been stressing the importance of this from the 
outset of the peace process and are disappointed at the 
government's refusal to take this issue seriously. 
However, the long term development of the Tamil areas is 
something separate to be discussed and addressed in the 
future. 
 
>> TamilNet:  The American Ambassador is questioning the 
economic ideology of the LTTE.  What is your comment? 
 
>> Mr. Balasingham:  I can only say that we are in favor 
of an open market economy based on liberal democratic 
values.  Specific economic policies and fiscal 
arrangements have to be worked out in more detail in the 
final framework of a system of federal government at a 
later stage. 
 
End text. 
 
9.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
WILLS