This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 COLOMBO 000270 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, D, P 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV PTER CE LTTE
SUBJECT: LOCAL REACTION TO DEPUTY SECRETARY'S CSIS 
ADDRESS 
 
 
¶1. On 2/14 Deputy Secretary Armitage made major policy 
remarks regarding "Sri Lanka:  Prospects for Peace" while 
speaking at the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies in Washington.  The challenge for the GSL and the 
LTTE, Armitage said, is to create "tangible signs of 
progress...."  He called on both parties to accept pluralism 
within Sri Lankan society and to protect the human rights of 
all Sri Lankiness, and he noted that the USG had pledged $8 
million in humanitarian support for Sri Lanka and $1 million 
for defining. 
 
¶2. The Deputy Secretary's remarks resonated well in weekend 
news coverage and continued to reverberate into the week. 
The electronic media, radio and TV, government-owned and 
independent, began using post distributed materials in their 
2/16 broadcasts.  The English weekenders carried coverage on 
2/16 under headlines such as "U.S. holds out prize to 
tigers" (SUNDAY ISLAND, opposition English weekly), "If 
Tigers renounce violence ... U.S. prepared to consider 
lifting ban on LTTE" (SUNDAY LEADER, pro-UNP English 
weekly), "U.S. tells LTTE to prove commitment to peace" 
(SUNDAY OBSERVER, government-owned English weekly), and "No 
two armies or two navies in united Lanka, Armitage tells 
LTTE" (SUNDAY TIMES, independent English weekly).  Although 
most headlines admonished the LTTE, coverage itself was more 
balanced.  For example the OBSERVER wrote:  "Armitage has 
urged the LTTE to publicly and unequivocally renounce 
terrorism and prove that its days of violence are over.... 
[He] further said that no individual, no single political 
party could carry the burden of the peace process," which 
required "concerted effort by the President, the Prime 
Minister and the other parties." 
 
¶3. On Sunday the government-owned Sinhala weekly, SILUMINA, 
carried the story under the misleading headline "If LTTE 
puts a complete stop to terrorist activities they will be 
off America's list of banned organizations."  The Tamil 
press was also active.  "Government and Tigers may have to 
make difficult decisions" and "Armitage stresses that both 
parties should continue to observe cease fire" said the 
SUNDAY THINAKURAL (independent Tamil weekly).  "PM and 
President should work together for the progress of peace 
efforts" said the SUNDAY VIRAKESARI (independent Tamil 
weekly).  And the government owned Tamil daily, THINAKARAN, 
said that "America is studying the possibilities of the 
deproscription." 
 
¶4. On Monday (2/17) the Sinhala press weighed in more 
heavily.  DIVAINA (opposition Sinhala daily) reproduced the 
Embassy's press materials from 2/15.  DINAMINA (government- 
owned Sinhala daily) gave the story front-page coverage 
under the headline "America's deputy state secretary pledges 
fullest support for a permanent solution."  And LANKADEEPA 
(independent Sinhala daily) reproduced the "No two armies or 
two navies" coverage that had appeared in its sister 
weekender, the SUNDAY TIMES. 
 
¶5. Monday saw the first of five editorial replies to 
Armitage's remarks.  Under the headline "The LTTE and the 
U.S. ban" the ISLAND complained that "statements such as 
`The Tigers need to honour the restrictions and conditions 
[of] the ceasefire,' though welcome, are inadequate."  They 
are also confusing, said the ISLAND, given the USG's larger 
war on terrorism.  A more balanced editorial in Monday's 
DAILY NEWS, "Peace and world opinion," picked up on the 
Deputy Secretary's remarks about "mov[ing the LTTE] beyond 
the terror tactics of the past":  "These observations serve 
to remind us that ... this is not an exercise where the 
government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE can engage in a manner 
where international norms and standards can be ignored.... 
The Tigers have emerged from the ... jungles to occupy a 
place on the world stage because they have made a public 
commitment to peace.  But their actions on the ground must 
match their words.  They have to realize that the world -- 
and indeed the rest of Sri Lanka -- needs to see a genuine 
transformation of the LTTE if their acceptance into the 
world community is to be guaranteed."  And the MIRROR 
(independent English daily), under the headline "Timely 
warning," wrote:  Sri Lankans "should certainly be grateful 
to the U.S. for telling the LTTE in clear precise terms what 
they should do to carry forward the ongoing peace process to 
a successful conclusion." 
 
¶6. Monday also saw the appearance of two Sinhala editorials. 
Under the headline "Making the Peace effort happen -- Both 
parties responsible," the government-owned DINAMINA worried 
about "a few Sinhalese and Tamils who await the collapse of 
the peace process."  And LANKADEEPA (independent Sinhala 
daily) said that "Armitage's statement very clearly defines 
the real situation required for permanent peace in the 
country....  However, it is evident that this ideal 
situation does not prevail....  Although a national peace 
day has been declared and the MOU is one year old, many 
unfortunate incidents in the north have led the government 
to put the forces on alert....  It is obvious that both 
parties should work hard for peace.  Any violation by either 
party is a betrayal, but recent incidents show that the 
Tigers need to make more sacrifices...." 
 
¶7. The full text of the Deputy Secretary's remarks, as 
downloaded from the Washington File, appeared in the DAILY 
NEWS, the SUNDAY ISLAND, and the SUNDAY OBSERVER. 
 
¶8. Full texts of English-medium editorials follow. 
 
8.a "Timely Warning," DAILY MIRROR (independent English 
daily) 
 
Whatever the misgivings and objections Sri Lankans, in 
common with other peace-loving peoples throughout the world 
have against the United States Government's war preparations 
to punish Iraq, they should certainly be grateful to the US 
for telling the LTTE in clear precise terms what they should 
do to carry forward the ongoing peace process to a 
successful conclusion. 
 
Deputy Secretary of State of the US Government, Richard 
Armitage speaking to a gathering at the center for Strategic 
and International Studies in Washington has said that the 
LTTE must publicly and unequivocally renounce terrorism and 
prove that its days of violence are over. He has added that 
the US will never accept the tactics of terror regardless of 
any legitimate Tamil aspirations. Armitage has not failed to 
hold out hope for the LTTE in return for its renunciation of 
violence. He has said that if the LTTE can move beyond the 
terror tactics of the past and make a convincing case 
through its conduct and its actual actions that it is 
committed to a political solution and to peace, the US will 
consider removing the LTTE from the list of terrorist 
organizations. 
 
This exhortation from the US, comes at a time when certain 
major incidents and minor skirmishes between the army and 
LTTE cadres show a trend of escalating, indicating a 
tendency to destabilize the peace process, fears about which 
even Japan's peace envoy, Yasushi Akashi has expressed. 
Although the worst fears of a resumption of war has so far 
been averted mainly because of the sound conflict-resolution 
mechanism built into the process and the effectiveness of 
the international safety net that restrains the LTTE from 
indulging in crime and violence as they did before, threats 
to the process continue.  That is why the exercise of 
preserving the peace process is compared to a walk on a 
tight rope which is pulled in two directions. On one side is 
the LTTE torn between their dream of creating their Eelam 
and the compulsions and pressures exerted by external forces 
and on the other side by those opposed to giving any 
concession to the Tamil community and also persons 
supporting the peace process, but having suspicions and 
misgivings about the LTTE's commitment to peace through a 
negotiated settlement. 
 
The task is, therefore, onerous and as Armitage points out, 
no individual or single party could carry the burden of the 
peace process and that it should really be a concerted 
effort by the President, the Prime Minister and the other 
parties. Armitage gives due credit to President Kumaratunga 
for her peace plan of 1995 which, he says, was an important 
precursor to the progress that is being made today, while 
commending the Wickremesinghe Government for continuing to 
take bold steps in the direction of peace. 
 
However, it is the lack of sustained cooperation between the 
President representing the main partner in the PA and the 
Prime Minister representing the UNP, that has now emerged as 
a major obstacle to forging an acceptable formula for the 
settlement of the national issue. President Kumaratunga who 
oscillates between high statesmanship and low party politics 
and confuses the public seem to contribute more than anyone 
else to put the peace process in great jeopardy. 
 
It is, however, creditable that while her approach 
oscillates between extremes like a pendulum, her major PA 
partners, the LSSP and CP are maintaining their consistent 
approach. Ironically redoubtable peace propagandists of 
yesteryear who paraded street dramas and organized Sudu 
Nelum shows are today conspicuously absent from the scene or 
supporting the hardliners on the approach to peace. 
This indeed is nothing but the continued display of naked 
hypocrisy and political opportunism that pushed this country 
to the present impasse.  The LTTE, at least now, should see 
the realities of the present situation and quickly adjust 
themselves to pursuing the democratic path in which there is 
no room for violence and suppression of the rights of others 
living in the areas which they have brought under their 
control by force and terrorism. Meanwhile, the government 
should also make every effort to get the opposition parties 
more actively involved in the peace process because without 
their cooperation the expected constitutional reforms for 
power sharing will remain unrealized. And the inevitable 
result of the failure will be to push the nation to the jaws 
of war once again 
 
8.B. "Peace and World Opinion," DAILY NEWS (government owned 
daily) 
 
The comments on the Sri Lankan peace process made by the 
Deputy Secretary of State of the United States, Richard L. 
Armitage comes as no surprise to those who have watched the 
international community's attitude towards our tentative 
progress towards finding a long-term solution to the 
national question. 
 
Armitage has called on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 
to make clear that it has renounced violence so that it can 
be freed of the proscription the U.S. has imposed on the 
organization.  He also asked the Tigers to honour their 
pledge to end the recruitment of children into the ranks of 
its fighting forces and respect the democratic and human 
rights of all peoples living in the North and East. 
 
These comments are consistent with what Armitage told the 
November Peace Support meeting held in Oslo in the presence 
of the LTTE's theoretician Anton Balasingham. 
 
They are also in line with the international community's new 
resolve to act against terror in all forms. 
 
The U.S. and other states, which have banned the LTTE, did 
not simply lift their proscription orders because the Sri 
Lankan state decided to temporarily lift its ban to engage 
the peace talks with the Tigers.  They are awaiting concrete 
results, and proof that the Tigers have really changed their 
former ways before they can un-ban the organization. 
 
Armitage in his recent remarks made in the U.S. has said 
that his country would consider lifting the ban when it is 
convinced the LTTE has "moved beyond the terror tactics of 
the past." 
 
These observations serve to remind us that the peace process 
in Sri Lanka is not being conducted in isolation.  This is 
not an exercise where the government of Sri Lanka and the 
LTTE can engage in a manner where international norms and 
standards can be ignored. 
 
The Lankan process is being closely monitored by friendly 
countries and on the way the parties to the conflict would 
have to satisfy the international community that the final 
result would lead to creating a stable, secure, pluralistic 
democracy in Sri Lanka. 
 
In this context recent incidents in the North have been 
unfortunately responsible for raising tensions between the 
government forces and the LTTE. 
 
The horrific incident in the seas of Delft where a standoff 
between the Navy and Tiger cadres ended with four LTTE men 
committing suicide in full view of the Ceasefire monitors 
was the most serious.  The LTTE admitted it was their fault 
that the stand off ended in such a tragedy, but to this date 
has not offered a reasonable explanation as to why they were 
transporting an anti-aircraft weapon in a clandestine manner 
through government-controlled waters. 
 
The second serious incident was the deliberate provocation 
of the security forces personnel at Manipay when LTTE cadres 
including some women created an incident that required the 
Police to disperse them using a riot squad. 
 
The LTTE has also used this tension to pressure the Jaffna 
Municipality to defer the opening of the reconstructed 
library, which was to be a symbol of healing between North 
and South.  An angry council resigned en-masse after the 
incident, alleging that they had been put "under severe 
pressure," by the LTTE. 
 
These incidents are unfortunate and place a heavy strain on 
the progress towards peace. 
 
The sad part is that the government and the LTTE have 
progressed well at the head table of the peace talks, but 
the commitments made at the negotiations and the spirit that 
the talks are being conducted in does not seem to have 
percolated to the ground where tensions have risen. 
 
It seems also to indicate that the LTTE cadres on the ground 
are still in a confrontational mode and are not geared for 
peace and accommodation. 
 
This is what Armitage and other international observers of 
the peace process have been constrained to note in recent 
days. 
 
The Tigers have emerged from the Vanni jungles to occupy a 
place on the world stage because they have made a public 
commitment to peace.  But their actions on the ground must 
match their words. 
 
They have to realize that the world -- and indeed the rest 
of Sri Lanka -- needs to see a genuine transformation of the 
LTTE if their acceptance into the world community is to be 
guaranteed. 
 
8.C. "The LTTE and the U.S. ban," ISLAND (opposition daily) 
 
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has told a 
conference in Washington that if the Liberation Tigers of 
Tamil Eelam moved beyond terror tactics and proved it was 
committed to peace, "the United States will certainly 
consider removing the LTTE from the list of Foreign 
Terrorist Organizations." 
 
"The LTTE," he has said, "is going to have to take a number 
of difficult steps to demonstrate that it remains committed 
to a political solution."  He has -- going by what is 
reported of his speech -- stopped short of specifying what 
these `difficult steps' are.  These steps ought to be 
elaborated on by the U.S. now that it has evinced so keen an 
interest in Sri Lanka's conflict.  Statements such as "The 
Tigers need to honour the restrictions and conditions that 
the ceasefire -- and future negotiations -- set on their 
arms supply," though welcome, are inadequate given the 
enthusiasm of the U.S. 
 
Mr. Armitage has said, "The United States should be playing 
a role in concert with other nations, committing our human 
and financial resources to settling this conflict." 
 
Having committed itself pro tanto, the U.S. should leave no 
room for ambiguity as to what it really expects of the LTTE 
in keeping with the U.S. strategy for battling terrorism, 
which according to President Bush's new National Strategy 
for Combating Terrorism, `requires direct and continuous 
action against terrorist organizations to initially disrupt 
them, over time degrade them, and ultimately to destroy 
them.' 
 
President Bush's position is:  "The more frequently and 
relentlessly we strike the terrorists across all fronts, 
using all the tools of statecraft, the more effective we 
will be.  The United States, with its unique ability to 
build partnerships and project power, will lead the fight 
against terrorist organizations of global reach.  By 
striking constantly and ensuring that terrorists have no 
place to hide, we will compress their scope and reduce the 
capability of these organizations." 
 
We are sad to have to say that this policy of the U.S. is 
not reflected in the modus operandi of the international 
community involved in Sri Lanka's conflict with the 
blessings of the U.S. in handling LTTE terrorists.  The 
World Bank having delegates of terrorists at its meetings, 
foreign diplomats meeting and dining with wanted LTTE 
leaders etc. run counter to the U.S. strategy.  In Oslo last 
December, Mr. Armitage himself was a participant at an aid 
group meeting held in support of the Sri Lanka government 
and the very LTTE proscribed in the U.S.! 
 
Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan government has gone to such an 
extent to appease the terrorists that it is now paying 
`taxes' to the terrorists through government agencies like 
the CWE and the BMC.  The terror leaders who masterminded 
devastating attacks on the country's only international 
airport less than two years ago are not only whisked in and 
out without Customs checks together with their baggage but 
also treated to parties at the airport and given VVIP 
chopper rides to and from their jungle hide-outs. 
 
The LTTE enjoys all this without having budged an inch from 
its terror project.  Last December in Oslo the LTTE had the 
courage, according to Reuters, to turn down a call by none 
other than Mr. Armitage himself, who is said to be holding 
out a prize to the Tigers, for it to eschew violence.  Anton 
Balasingham reiterated this position in Berlin the other 
day. 
 
Be that as it may, the U.S. banned the LTTE on its soil in 
the interest of its own national security and not that of 
Sri Lanka's.  And it has every right to do whatever it 
wishes to with the ban.  The impact of deproscription of the 
LTTE in the U.S. on Sri Lanka will cause little concern to 
Washington in deciding when to lift the ban.  The proteases, 
`If the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam moved beyond terror 
tactics and proved it was committed to peace,' will then be 
conveniently dropped and the apodosis will just take effect. 
The same is true of Britain and other international do- 
gooders. 
 
The LTTE will be Sri Lanka's burden in the end.  We have 
seen how India considered Sri Lanka's conflict as its burden 
in the 1980s and went to the extent of thrusting a solution 
on Colombo, which failed to work.  Norway which was involved 
in the peace process in the 1994-95 period was nowhere to be 
seen after the LTTE blew the peace process sky high until 
the LTTE itself agreed to talk peace again in 2001. 
 
This is the harsh reality that the government of Sri Lanka 
must not lose sight of in trying to resolve the conflict 
with the help of foreigners. 
 
WILLS