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 03 COLOMBO 000271 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, EAP/J, EUR/NB, 
EUR/ERA 
 
NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958:   DECL:  02-19-14 
TAGS: PREL PGOV EAID KPAO CE NO JA EU LTTE
SUBJECT:  Washington donor Co-chairs meeting reaps 
generally upbeat reaction in Sri Lanka 
 
Refs:  Colombo 266, and previous 
 
(U) Classified by James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of 
Mission.  Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY:  Media coverage of the February 17 Sri 
Lanka donor Co-chairs meeting hosted by the Deputy 
Secretary in Washington is just beginning to flow in. 
 
SIPDIS 
Most local press reaction, thus far, has been 
straightforward reporting of the Department's press 
statement with little commentary attached.  In the 
meantime, reaction from political contacts and local 
observers has been generally positive, with only the 
radical JVP a bit downbeat.  Our strong sense is that 
the meeting served to remind Sri Lankans that the 
international community remains concerned with the peace 
process and is watching closely during this sensitive 
election timeframe.  Septel will follow with additional 
media coverage.  END SUMMARY. 
 
--------------------------------- 
Media Coverage:  Still Flowing In 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Media coverage of the February 17 Sri Lanka 
donor Co-chairs (the U.S., Japan, the EU, Norway) 
meeting hosted by the Deputy Secretary in Washington is 
just beginning to flow in.  Thus far, coverage in Sri 
Lanka has generally been straightforward, featuring all 
or part of the February 17 statement made by Department 
Spokesman Ambassador Boucher.  The three local English- 
language papers carried the following front-page stories 
on the February 17 meeting: 
 
-- The independent daily ISLAND topped the page with 
"Donors call for early return to peace talks." 
 
-- The other independent daily, the DAILY MIRROR, 
stated:  "Donors affirm aid pledged:  On condition peace 
process progresses." 
 
-- The state-run DAILY NEWS stated:  "Donors will 
continue aid flow to Lanka." 
 
Coverage in the Sinhala- and Tamil-language press 
basically mirrored the coverage in the English-language 
dailies. 
 
¶3.  (C) The pro-Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) 
website "TamilNet" carried all of the Department's 
statement.  As far as Mission is aware, however, key 
LTTE officials -- such as Political Chief S.P. 
Thamilchelvam and London-based spokesman Anton 
Balasingham -- have not yet issued specific commentary 
on the meeting and its results.  (FYI.  A Tamil MP with 
close links to the LTTE said he thought the meeting was 
basically positive -- see Para five.) 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Overall, the Sri Lankan press has not yet 
provided much by the way of commentary.  As news of the 
event is digested, we would expect some commentary 
pieces to appear in February 20 newspapers and in the 
weekend press.  (Septel will provide a synopsis of media 
reaction.) 
 
------------------ 
Political Reaction 
------------------ 
 
¶5.  (C) In the meantime, there has been no official 
reaction from President Kumaratunga's office, or from 
Prime Minister Wickremesinghe's.  As reviewed below, 
however, reaction from political contacts in the major 
parties has been generally positive (except for the JVP, 
which -- as expected -- was a bit downbeat:  see below). 
Snippets include the following: 
 
-- Dinesh Gunawardena, a senior MP in President 
Kumaratunga's People's Alliance (PA) party, told poloff 
that, like many of his PA colleagues, he was 
appreciative of the February 17 statement.  He was 
"especially reassured" by the four Co-chairs' commitment 
to continue assistance to Sri Lanka, as aid was crucial 
for peace.  Adding that he always was thankful for U.S. 
positioning on human rights and democracy matters, 
Gunawardena said he looked forward to helping strengthen 
Sri Lanka's relationship with the U.S. should his party 
win the April 2 parliamentary elections. 
 
-- Keheliya Rambukwella, a senior United National Party 
(UNP) MP and former minister, told Pol FSN that he 
thought the statement was very clear in urging a rapid 
resumption of peace negotiations with the Tigers. 
Rambukwella said it was positive that the statement also 
urged Sri Lanka's political parties to continue 
exploring ways to work together in moving the peace 
process forward. 
 
-- M.L.A.M. Hizbullah, an MP in the Muslim National 
Unity Alliance (NUA), told us that he thought the Co- 
chairs meeting was quite helpful.  He said it was 
important that aid should flow to the north and east. 
Regardless of which party was in control in Colombo, he 
said he felt that assistance funds should be provided as 
they would benefit the country and peace. 
 
-- N. Raviraj, an MP for the generally pro-LTTE Tamil 
National Alliance, told Pol FSN that the Co-chairs' 
statement was positive and would help the situation in 
Sri Lanka.  He thought, however, that the Sinhalese 
parties in the south felt that assistance was their 
right and there was no need to spread it around much to 
the war-torn north/east.  This was unfortunate, Raviraj 
said, and he hoped that the parties in the south would 
stop battling each other long enough to consider how 
important the peace process was and how much assistance 
was truly needed in all parts of the country. 
 
¶6.  (C) The only somewhat negative reaction that Mission 
picked up was from the radical Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna 
(JVP) party.  In a meeting with polchief on February 19, 
Somawansa Amarasinghe, a key JVP leader who recently 
returned to Sri Lanka after years in the UK, related 
that he thought that the statement was "as fine as far 
as it went."  Amarasinghe said he would have wished that 
the statement was harder on the LTTE, which he said had 
not proved itself "sincerely committed to the ceasefire 
accord."  Polchief countered that statement was evenly 
balanced, urging the LTTE to act "responsibly," for 
example.  Amarasinghe added that he was a bit worried 
because Norway had been involved in crafting the 
statement.  The JVP did not believe that the GoN was 
"fully neutral" and thought that it might be "favoring 
the LTTE."  Polchief responded that Norway took great 
care in managing its role as facilitator and was in fact 
neutral as to the parties. 
 
-------------- 
Other Reaction 
-------------- 
 
¶7.  (C) Local think-tank and civil society observers 
were supportive of the statement, feeling that it struck 
an appropriately balanced tone.  Some reaction from 
these quarters follows: 
 
-- In a conversation with poloff, Jehan Perera, Director 
of the National Peace Council, a local civil society 
group, said he thought that the Co-chairs' statement was 
reassuring on the need to move forward with humanitarian 
assistance in light of local worries over the upcoming 
election.  He felt, specifically, that the Co-chairs' 
comment that future development aid would be conditional 
on progress in the peace process served as an important 
notice to Sri Lanka's political parties to be restrained 
in their language during the campaign. 
 
-- Hitting on many of the same points as Perera, Kethesh 
Logananthan from the Center for Policy Alternatives, a 
local think-tank, told poloff that he thought the 
message sent by the Co-chairs was a positive one.  Sri 
Lankans would appreciate the international concern over 
the situation in the country and the commitment 
regarding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. 
Equally important, he said, was the reminder that major 
development assistance remained contingent on progress 
in the peace process. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶8.  (C) Our strong sense is that the February 17 meeting 
served to remind Sri Lankans that the international 
community remains concerned with the peace process and 
is closely watching during this sensitive election 
timeframe.  In pressing this message, the timing of the 
meeting was excellent, coming just before the onset of 
the effective start of the election campaign (when Sri 
Lankans will quickly tune out all things not political). 
Whether Sri Lankans heed the international community's 
message is as yet unclear, of course.  Certainly, as 
could be seen in the general thread of the JVP's 
comments, there are those who do not particularly 
appreciate the foreign concern with Sri Lanka and 
apparently remain willing to say things during the 
course of the campaign that might hurt the peace 
process.  END COMMENT. 
 
¶9.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
LUNSTEAD