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

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 COLOMBO 000150 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS; NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
 
PLEASE ALSO PASS TOPEC 
 
E.O. 12958:       DECL:  01-26-14 
TAGS: PREL EAID PGOV PTER CE NO JA EU LTTE
SUBJECT:  In January 23 Tokyo followup meeting, Donors 
agree on need to move forward on assistance efforts 
 
Refs:  (A) Colombo - SA/INS 01/26/03 unclass email 
-      (B) Oslo 154 (Notal) 
-      (C) Colombo 127, and previous 
 
(U) Classified by Ambassador Jeffrey J. Lunstead. 
Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY:  On January 23, Japanese Special Envoy 
Yasushi Akashi hosted a second followup meeting to the 
June 2003 Tokyo donors conference.  The first session of 
the meeting was attended by Colombo-based diplomats and 
local heads of multilateral organizations (WB, IMF, UN). 
Representatives of the GSL joined the second session of 
the meeting.  The Tamil Tigers did not attend.  Donors 
expressed their strong support for the implementation of 
humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance plans 
throughout the island, despite the ongoing suspension of 
peace talks between the government and the Tigers. 
Although negotiations were on hold, donors highlighted 
the need to sustain progress in the peace process.  They 
cautioned, however, that assistance would be limited 
without progress toward a final settlement. 
 
¶2.  (C) The donors also discussed the importance of 
keeping communication lines with the Tigers open, as a 
means of keeping the group engaged in the peace process. 
At the same time, the donors underscored the need to 
send a united message to the Tigers about development 
and assistance activities.  Referring to the ongoing 
cohabitation impasse between the President and Prime 
Minister, the group agreed to continue to urge the two 
sides to resolve the crisis.  GSL representatives agreed 
with the donors' conclusions, and stated their 
commitment to resolve the political situation, to 
restart negotiations with the Tigers, and to increase 
aid funding to the north/east.  Overall, the meeting was 
a success in getting the donors on the same wavelength 
regarding the peace process.  As such, the meeting 
served as an excellent lead-in to the Washington meeting 
of Tokyo co-chairs scheduled for February 17.  (See 
Septel containing Japanese Ambassador Suda's readout of 
Akashi's visit.)  END SUMMARY. 
 
----------------------------- 
Second Tokyo Followup Meeting 
----------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (C) On January 23, Japanese Special Envoy Yasushi 
Akashi hosted the "Second Followup Meeting of the Tokyo 
Conference" in Colombo.  (The first followup meeting to 
the June 2003 Tokyo Conference was held in Colombo in 
September 2003.)  The meeting was attended by 
representatives of the four co-chairs of the Tokyo 
process (Japan, Norway, the U.S., and the EU, including 
the Netherlands in its rotating EU presidency role -- 
Ireland does not have representation in Colombo), as 
well as local envoys from Australia, Canada, France, 
Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. 
Representatives of international agencies included the 
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian 
Development Bank, and several United Nations 
organizations (UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF).  The January 23 
meeting was divided into two sessions:  The first 
session was an "informal" donors meeting; and the second 
session was an "official" meeting in which donors were 
joined by GSL Ministers G.L. Peiris, Milinda Moragoda, 
and Rauf Hakeem, and Bradman Weerakoon, the Prime 
Minister's Secretary.  (The Liberation Tigers of Tamil 
Eelam, "LTTE," organization was invited to attend, but 
declined the invitation.)  Ambassador Lunstead, AID 
Mission Chief, and Poloff (notetaker) represented the 
U.S. at the meeting. 
 
¶4.  (C) In setting the stage for the discussions that 
followed, Akashi told the group that there was a need to 
evaluate donor activities that were occurring and those 
that were not in light of the "political paralysis" in 
the south.  Akashi stated it was important that none of 
the parties in the south or the Tigers should receive 
"discordant messages" from the various donors.  Donors 
needed to be flexible in finding ways to continue 
development and rehabilitation assistance, especially to 
the north/east, as it was vital to keep the LTTE engaged 
in the peace process.  At the same time, Akashi said he 
recognized the government's strong commitment to ending 
the ongoing cohabitation impasse and resuming 
negotiations with the Tigers. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
Island-wide Assistance Plans Need to Move Forward 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶5.  (C) Donors expressed strong agreement with 
Ambassador Lunstead's remarks underscoring the critical 
need to differentiate between the peace process and the 
peace negotiations.  Although the negotiations between 
the GSL and the LTTE were on hold, the Ambassador 
stressed that it was vital to support the broader peace 
process which was ongoing.  Donors also agreed that it 
was important to ensure that Sri Lankans throughout the 
island benefited from Tokyo-pledged financial 
assistance.  In that regard, they agreed that it was 
essential to manage perceptions about the geographic 
distribution of aid by communicating accurate messages 
about the amount and location of development activities. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
Donors Agree:  Lack of Progress will Limit Aid 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶6.  (C) While affirming the need to continue development 
assistance on an island-wide basis, donors recognized 
that -- in the absence of substantive progress in the 
peace talks -- there will come a limit to funding. 
Ambassador Lunstead said it was necessary to make clear 
that the entire aid package pledged during the June 2003 
Tokyo conference could not be released without progress 
toward a final settlement.  Japanese Ambassador Akio 
Suda warned the GSL that without substantive progress in 
the peace process and recommencement of negotiations 
with the Tigers, it would become difficult for Colombo- 
based missions to keep their governments engaged in Sri 
Lanka, given the significant need for assistance in 
other parts of the world.  Participants also addressed 
the lack of an effective mechanism for distributing aid 
in the north/east.  Various donors suggested the 
possibility of developing an "interim interim" 
administrative structure, along the lines of the 
suspended North East Rehabilitation Fund (NERF).  (Note: 
In early 2003, the LTTE pulled out of the original 
governmental structure, the Sub-Committee on the 
Immediate Humanitarian Rehabilitation in the North/East, 
"SIHRN," complaining that it was ineffective.) 
 
--------------------- 
Dealing with the LTTE 
--------------------- 
 
¶7.  (C) Donors agreed on the importance of ensuring that 
the LTTE received accurate information.  Norwegian 
Ambassador Hans Brattskar said he and his GON colleagues 
remained in regular contact with the group's 
representatives in Sri Lanka, as well as the LTTE's 
chief spokesman, Anton Balasingham, who is based in 
London.  Brattskar added that an LTTE delegation, led by 
Tiger Political Chief S.P. Thamilchelvam, was scheduled 
to visit Oslo, as well as several other European cities, 
for meetings at the end of January.  Akashi agreed that 
it was important that the donors send consistent 
messages to the LTTE.  G.L. Peiris underscored the GSL's 
desire that the Tigers have access to timely, accurate 
information about developments in the south.  Further, 
Ambassador Brattskar called for donors to continue 
contacts with the LTTE in order to build capacity within 
the group on development issues.  In response to a call 
for increased technical-level GSL-LTTE contact, Bradman 
Weerakoon said there was no formal structure for "track 
two" peace negotiations between the GSL and LTTE, but 
acknowledged several existing avenues of communication, 
as well as opportunities for face-to-face meetings. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
EU paper on Tokyo Monitoring Framework 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (C) Dutch Ambassador Susanna Blankhart, representing 
the EU presidency, discussed the need to develop a 
mechanism to fulfill the spirit of the Tokyo declaration 
regarding monitoring progress in the peace process.  To 
that end, Ambassador Blankhart presented an EU-developed 
"framework" document which would set up a mechanism for 
donors to monitor progress in the peace process (as laid 
out in paras 18 and 20 of the Tokyo Declaration), and to 
develop incentives for the GSL and LTTE (see Ref A). 
While many other donors agreed in theory with the need 
for common monitoring mechanisms, the group did not 
discuss the EU paper in depth.  Australian High 
Commissioner David Binns cautioned that any performance 
indicators needed to be realistic and not overly 
ambitious.  There was general agreement to begin work on 
monitoring progress in the peace process, but no 
agreement to begin joint work on incentives. 
 
---------------------------------- 
Discussion of Cohabitation Impasse 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (C) The donors also discussed the ongoing 
cohabitation impasse between Prime Minister 
Wickremesinghe and President Kumaratunga.  Donors 
stressed the need to continue pressure on both sides to 
resolve the impasse and to urge them to focus on a 
bipartisan approach to negotiations with LTTE.  From 
Norway's perspective as peace process facilitator, 
Ambassador Brattskar stated that both parties in the 
south need to be involved in decision-making on peace 
process and development-related issues in order for 
there to be positive progress.  Brattskar, and others, 
cautioned about the damaging effect the southern 
political situation, including corollary issues such as 
recent religious tensions (attacks on churches, etc.), 
was having on the peace process. 
 
-------------- 
GSL's Comments 
-------------- 
 
¶10.  (C) During the second session, Minister for 
Constitutional Affairs and lead GSL peace process 
negotiator G.L. Peiris reviewed the GSL's perspective on 
the current status of the peace process, highlighting 
what he characterized as the "positive" results reaped 
since December 2001 (when the process began).  In this 
vein, he noted the February 2002 ceasefire agreement, 
the December 2002 Oslo agreement on devolution of power 
as a means to resolve the conflict, the willingness of 
both sides to discuss the setting up of a possible 
interim administration in the north/east, and the 
central role of Norway as peace process facilitator. 
Echoing earlier comments from the donors, Peiris said 
the GSL was interested in exploring ways of getting 
sizable redevelopment funds "flowing" to the north/east. 
He stressed the need to remain optimistic about the 
peace process despite the cohabitation impasse in the 
south.  In response, Jeremy Carter, local head of the 
IMF, expressed concern that government funds were not 
being spent according to the budget.  This could result 
in misunderstandings among ethnic groups.  Commenting 
further on the peace process, Minister Moragoda admitted 
that the current situation was having a negative effect 
in many areas, especially the economy, compounded by the 
ongoing drought, and higher prices for petroleum, 
fertilizer, and power.  He said his focus at the moment 
was to limit the damage and protect the peace process 
and economic gains of the past two years.  Moragoda 
concluded by stating that the GSL needed a way forward 
that balanced the concerns of all groups:  the LTTE, 
Muslims, and Sinhalese. 
 
---------------------------------- 
Tigers Complain about Aid Delivery 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶11.  (C) Akashi also briefed the group on his January 22 
meeting with the Tigers in the group's northern 
stronghold of Kilinochchi (also see Septel containing 
Ambassador Suda's readout of Akashi's visit).  Akashi 
said Thamilchelvam had expressed concern about what the 
LTTE characterized as the slow progress of assistance to 
the north/east and the need for aid to be more 
effectively channeled to those regions.  He also 
reported that Thamilchelvam had acknowledged receiving 
messages from both representatives of the PM and the 
President on various issues.  Thamilchelvam felt that 
these messages were poorly coordinated and were often 
redundant. 
 
¶12.  (C) These remarks largely parallel comments made by 
Thamilchelvam during an earlier meeting with 
international donors.  On January 19, the LTTE hosted 
this meeting in Kilinochchi.  Representatives from 
Norway, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, 
Switzerland, UK, Germany, France, the EU, as well as 
several international aid organizations, were in 
attendance.  (The U.S. was invited but did not attend.) 
Massimo Darchini, the Italian Charge' d'Affaires, 
attended the January 19 meeting, and told us that 
Thamilchelvam gave a lengthy speech to the donors about 
pressing rehabilitation and development needs in the 
north/east.  In addition, Thamilchelvam outlined a 
proposed LTTE planning and development secretariat to be 
used as a mechanism for receiving and disbursing funding 
for projects in the north/east.  In response, according 
to Darchini, the bilateral donors were united on the 
need to develop a mechanism -- the NERF or something 
like it -- for delivering aid to the north/east, 
provided that there was an appropriate oversight body. 
There was little substantive dialogue between 
Thamilchelvam and the donors, however. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶13.  (C) Overall, the January 23 meeting was a success 
in getting the donors on the same wavelength regarding 
the peace process.  Many important events have taken 
place since the last "followup" meeting in September 
2003, including the President's takeover of the three 
ministries in November, the Norwegians putting on hold 
their facilitation effort, etc., and it was important 
for donors to touch base with one another on where they 
stood in terms of their Tokyo commitments.  It was key, 
for example, that the donors agreed that the peace 
process was still a going concern, although the talks 
remained on hold.  The agreement on the need to move 
forward with assistance on an island-wide basis was also 
noteworthy, as was the recognition that the full amount 
of assistance pledged at Tokyo would not materialize 
unless solid progress was made toward attainment of a 
negotiated settlement.  Given the depth and breadth of 
the understandings reached among donors, the meeting 
served as an excellent lead-in to the Washington meeting 
of Tokyo co-chairs scheduled for February 17.  Septel 
will contain our thoughts and recommendations for that 
meeting.  END COMMENT. 
 
¶14.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
LUNSTEAD