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

051119Z Jan 04

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 COLOMBO 000012 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, INR/NESA; 
NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
 
PLEASE ALSO PASS TOPEC 
 
E.O. 12958:       DECL:  01/05/14 
TAGS: PREL PGOV KPAO PINR CE LTTE
SUBJECT:  Sri Lanka:  U.S. efforts to help end 
cohabitation impasse net big local reaction 
 
Refs:  03 Colombo 2200, and previous 
 
(U) Classified by James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of 
Mission.  Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY:  Sri Lanka has been abuzz the last 
several days with reaction to the Secretary's letters to 
the President and the PM, and the Department's 
statement issued after the Deputy Secretary met with 
Minister Moragoda last week.  Press reaction has been 
mixed, with some commentary supporting the U.S. effort 
to help break the cohabitation logjam and others 
critical of USG involvement in the matter.  In the only 
statement thus far from a political party, the radical 
JVP flayed the USG for its efforts.  Local observers we 
have spoken to have generally praised the U.S.  We think 
the USG messages have helped by reminding the parties 
involved in the impasse that the international community 
is watching and wants them to compromise.  Reftel 
reviews the Ambassador's meeting with the PM regarding 
the Secretary's letter and Septel reviews that with the 
President.  A full media play cable also follows Septel. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
-------------------- 
Mixed Press Reaction 
-------------------- 
 
¶2.  (C) Sri Lanka has been abuzz the last several days 
with reaction to Secretary Powell's letters to President 
Chandrika Kumaratunga and Prime Minister Ranil 
Wickremesinghe, and the Department's statement issued 
after Deputy Secretary Armitage's December 29 meeting 
with Economic Reforms Minister Milinda Moragoda. 
(Although the texts of the Secretary's letters were 
apparently not made public, their basic contents were 
leaked to the press either by the President's or PM's 
office, or both.  See Reftel for a readout of the 
Ambassador's December 31 meeting with the PM and Septel 
reviewing his January 2 meeting the President.)  To a 
large extent, the local press, in remarking on the USG 
messages, conflated the Secretary's letters with the 
Department's statement.  At times, for example, the 
coverage made it appear that Minister Moragoda's visit 
to Washington precipitated the Secretary's letters, when 
in fact the letters were in process well before 
Moragoda's trip. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Thus far, press reaction has been mixed, with 
some editorials supporting the U.S. effort to help break 
the cohabitation logjam and others critical of USG 
involvement in the matter.  (Note:  See Septel for full 
review of the media play.)  On the positive side, all 
four Sunday (January 4) English-language papers ran 
front-page articles on the Secretary's letters that were 
basically accurate in describing the nature of the U.S. 
effort, i.e., that we urged both leaders to work 
together in the national interest.  In terms of 
commentary, the U.S. effort was also touched on in a 
basically positive manner in the following two 
editorials: 
 
-- A January 5 editorial in the independent English- 
language DAILY MIRROR "welcomed international mediation 
from countries like the USA, India or UK, who all have 
an interest in bringing about a permanent settlement 
here." 
 
 
-- A January 5 editorial in the independent Tamil daily 
THINAKKURAL said "while the pressure put forward by the 
US clearly shows the US interest in solving the ethnic 
problem it can be considered as the pressure 
representing the international community." 
¶4.  (SBU) Some press reaction was not as positive: 
 
-- A January 4 commentary in the independent English- 
language weekly SUNDAY TIMES said the PM was pursuing "a 
strategy of destabilizing the President by non-violent 
strategic means" involving the "application of pressure 
via the international community -- in other words, 
Ranil's favorite international safety net."  After 
meeting Moragoda, the Deputy Secretary "soon issued a 
statement saying the President's moves are not good for 
the country or the peace process.  There of course was 
little or no subtlety in it...it leaves room for 
everyone to say exactly where America's sympathies are." 
 
-- January 4 commentary in the independent weekender 
SUNDAY LEADER said the Department's statement "by 
remarking that the political crisis was precipitated in 
Colombo while Wickremesinghe was in Washington, the US 
had implied very strongly, it is Kumaratunga who is 
responsible for the crisis." 
 
-- January 4 commentary in the government-owned weekly 
SUNDAY OBSERVER criticized the GSL's support of the 
"hegemony of the U.S. of A," implying that the U.S. 
messages were some sort of quid pro quo favor made by 
the U.S. to the PM. 
 
-- A January 1 editorial in the independent Sinhala- 
language daily DIVAINA, critical of the U.S. armed 
interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, closed with the 
following question:  "Does Armitage's statement mean 
that if Sri Lanka's crisis in not solved, the US is 
going to invade Sri Lanka?" 
 
------------------------------------------ 
JVP Flays U.S.; No Comment yet from Tigers 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶5.  (SBU) In the only statement thus far from a 
political party, the radical Janantha Vimukthi Peramuna 
(JVP) flayed the USG for its efforts.  The party's 
statement came in the wake of the Department's 
December 29 statement.  In its statement, the JVP 
rejected "the attempt of the USA or any other force 
tampering in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka."  The 
group further denounced the PM, accusing him of "getting 
`world powers' to intimidate people." 
 
¶6.  (SBU) For its part, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil 
Eelam (LTTE) organization has not weighed in with their 
own commentary on the Secretary's letters or the 
Department's statement.  The pro-LTTE website 
"TamilNet," however, reported the Department's statement 
in a factual way in a December 30 posting. 
 
--------------------------- 
Praise from Local Observers 
--------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (C) Local observers that we have touched base with 
have generally praised the U.S. efforts: 
 
-- Jehan Perera of the National Peace Council, a local 
think-tank, said he felt the majority of Sri Lankans 
were happy with the U.S. efforts.  He added that the two 
Sri Lankan leaders seemed more focused on personal 
dynamics rather than external concerns at this point, so 
he wondered whether the U.S. effort would have much of 
an impact. 
 
-- Ven. Bellanwilla Wimalaratna Thero, a well-regarded 
Colombo-area Buddhist monk, spoke appreciatively of the 
U.S. messages.  He further hoped that other donor 
countries would follow the U.S. lead in urging the two 
parties to stop bickering and work together. 
-- Azmi Thassim, director of the Chamber of Commerce in 
the southern coastal town of Hambantota, felt that only 
the U.S. would be able to end the current political 
impasse between the President and PM.  Thassim, a 
Muslim, was thankful for the U.S. efforts and its 
support for a near-term resumption of GSL-LTTE peace 
talks. 
 
-- Kethesh Loganathan, an analyst at the Center for 
Policy Alternatives, a local think-tank, told poloff 
January 5 that he thought the U.S. message was a welcome 
one.  That said, he remarked that the U.S. was risking 
getting too involved in the details of the cohabitation 
conflict, which might lead to misunderstandings down the 
road. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶8.  (C) The anti-U.S. reaction came from expected 
quarters:  the JVP is consistently anti-American and the 
press criticism came from papers that often take an 
anti-U.S. slant.  Despite the flak, we think that the 
U.S. efforts have helped the situation by reminding Sri 
Lanka's cohabitation antagonists that the international 
community is watching.  The message that the U.S. would 
like to see the President and the PM compromise so the 
GSL can get back to focusing on the peace process 
resonates with many in the public.  Whether U.S. efforts 
-- in league with those of others in the international 
community -- might provide the two sides a fresh impetus 
to compromise remains unclear given the depth of 
distrust with which the two sides regard each other. 
END COMMENT. 
 
¶9.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
LUNSTEAD