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 02 COLOMBO 000911 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR D, SA, SA/INS, SA/PD, EAP/J, EUR/NB, EUR/ERA 
NSC FOR E. MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958:  DECL:  06-03-14 
TAGS: PREL PGOV EAID CE NO JA EU LTTE
SUBJECT:  Co-chairs meeting in Brussels receives a 
positive welcome in Sri Lanka 
 
Refs:  (A) Colombo 897, and previous 
 
(U) Classified by James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of 
Mission.  Reasons 1.5 (b, d). 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY:  Local reaction to the Sri Lanka donor 
co-chairs meeting held in Brussels on June 1 has been 
largely positive.  Embassy interlocutors were 
appreciative of the international community's sustained 
support for the peace process.  Media coverage has been 
light so far and focused on the linkages between aid and 
progress in the peace talks.  All in all, the co-chairs' 
statement has reassured Sri Lankans that the 
international community remains committed to the peace 
process and that the group is looking for the government 
and the Tigers to find a way to meet at the peace table 
soon.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (C) POLITICAL REACTION:  While there has been no 
official reaction from President Kumaratunga's office as 
of late June 3 regarding the meeting of the four co- 
chairs of the Tokyo Process (EU, Japan, Norway, and the 
U.S.), the reaction from political contacts have been 
largely positive.  Excerpts of reaction follow: 
 
-- Harim Peiris, Presidential Spokesman and Director 
General of the Office of Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, 
and Refugees, told poloff he felt the renewed attention 
on Sri Lanka in the wake of the June 1 co-chairs meeting 
was extremely positive.  He stressed the GSL's keen 
desire to resume talks and the government's focus now on 
resolving modalities and the core issues to be discussed 
when talks recommence.  Peiris realized, however, that a 
successful return to peace negotiations would require 
compromises by all parties.  He also noted that Sri 
Lanka's economic health was linked in large part to the 
rehabilitation work that would come with the 
disbursement of the $4.5 billion in aid pledged at the 
June 2003 Tokyo donors conference. 
 
-- R. Sampathan, a senior MP with the pro-Tiger Tamil 
National Alliance (TNA), welcomed the co-chairs' 
continued support and the surrounding positive publicity 
for the peace process.  Feeling that current efforts to 
resume peace negotiations were faring only somewhat 
well, Sampathan underscored that the interim 
administration proposal by the Liberation Tigers of 
Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was "fundamental to a lasting 
solution."  In this regard, he was hopeful that both 
sides would heed the co-chairs' call for a return to the 
peace table.  Although he recognized the logical need 
for donor aid to be contingent on progress with the 
peace process, Sampathan was worried that, without 
progress, aid would get directed elsewhere and not to 
the north/east where it was a "dire necessity." 
 
-- Naveen Dissanayake, a United National Party (UNP) MP 
from the hill country, told poloff that he hoped the GSL 
would take particular note of the co-chairs statement 
urging the resumption of talks.  Dissanayake felt that 
the government had not fully thought out its plan of 
action for the peace process and the message from the 
international community would provide incentive for the 
GSL to focus on the challenging issues surrounding 
negotiations.  Commenting on the UNP's recent electoral 
loss, Dissanayake said he also hoped, with the political 
dynamic reversed, that President Kumaratunga would 
dialogue with the UNP on the status and progress in 
peace talks.  (One of the President's major gripes with 
the former UNP government was that she felt excluded 
from its peace efforts.) 
 
¶3.  (C) Interlocutors from local think-tanks and civil 
society also thought the co-chairs' statement was 
positive and timely.  Some of their reaction follows: 
 
-- Jehan Perera, director of the National Peace Council, 
a local civil society NGO, told poloff that he welcomed 
the declaration by the co-chairs that they would remain 
supportive of the GSL and the peace process.  Knowing 
that full release of the aid pledged at Tokyo in June 
2003 would require progress in negotiations, Perera 
wondered how the donors would respond if the situation 
remained static -- both sides expressing willingness to 
talk, but being unable to agree on the on how to move 
the process forward.  He thought, therefore, that the 
possible loss of donor aid would ultimately put more 
pressure on the LTTE to compromise and return to the 
table.  The GSL, he said, still has other sources of aid 
and funding. 
 
-- Echoing many of the same comments as Perera, Kethesh 
Logananthan from the Center for Policy Alternatives, a 
local think-tank, told poloff that the co-chairs' 
statement would provide the needed push to get the peace 
process back on track.  Even if progress in the talks was 
slow, he thought the Tigers would not give up their 
economic interest in pursuing peace.  Reflecting further 
on the fact that the pledged aid was tied to progress at 
the peace table, Logananthan said it was imperative for 
the donor community to establish benchmarks for 
"progress in the peace talks." 
 
¶4.  (C) MEDIA REACTION:  Local media coverage of the 
June 1 press statement by the co-chairs has been mainly 
straightforward.  Coverage of the meeting were scattered 
through the English and vernacular presses.  Many of the 
reports focused on the conditionality of the pledged 
aid, being tied to progress in the peace process.  While 
the Tigers have not publicly commented on the statement, 
the pro-LTTE website, "TamilNet," contained the entire 
statement and highlighted the co-chairs' comment that 
there should be "no drift and no delay" in resuming the 
peace process. 
 
¶5.  (C) COMMENT:  On the whole, the substance and timing 
of the June 1 statement by the co-chairs seems to have 
been well-received locally as a demonstration of the 
international community's support of the peace effort. 
The language on aid clearly caught people's attention: 
a common theme touched on by contacts was one of concern 
that the donors could reach a point where they decided 
conditions for the pledged aid at Tokyo were not being 
met.  END COMMENT. 
 
¶6.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
LUNSTEAD