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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 COLOMBO 000111 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR S/ES, INR/MR, PA 
SA/INS (CAMP, SIM, GOWER) SA/PD (SCENSNY, ROGERS, 
PALLADINO); SSA/PAS 
 
SENSITIVE SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958:N/A 
TAGS: PHUM KPAO PTER EAID OIIP PREL CE LTTE
SUBJECT:  Special Media Reaction: Further Reaction to 
Ambassador's January 10 Speech to the American Chamber of 
Commerce on Peace Process 
 
REFS: A) Colombo 0054 B) Colombo 0072 C) Colombo 0089 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Sri Lankan media over the holiday 
weekend continued to analyze the Ambassador's January 10 
speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in which he 
expressed grave concern over LTTE violence and predicted the 
Tigers would face a stronger Sri Lankan military if they 
chose to abandon the Ceasefire Agreement. English and 
Sinhala media praised the statement but questioned its 
effectiveness, highlighting offers of U.S. military 
assistance.  Independent Tamil media claimed the Ambassador 
had overlooked abuses against Tamils by the Security Forces. 
The enduring reaction in the local media to a speech with 
little new content reflects the tense atmosphere prevailing 
now in the country, with observers focusing intently on the 
words of the international community.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) Commentators in the government-owned media continued 
to express support for the Ambassador's statement, but 
inquired whether the LTTE would take it to heart.  The 
President's Media Advisor and veteran commentator Lucien 
Rajakarunanayake, in his weekly "On my watch" column (1/14), 
argued the LTTE had not, and would not, heed the message: 
"The latest warning, the toughest of its kind so far, has 
come from the United States Ambassador to Sri Lanka Jeffery 
Lunstead... The U.S. Ambassador's assurance about training 
provided to the Sri Lankan armed forces may give some 
satisfaction to those harboring doubts about the capability 
or preparedness of the Sri Lankan security forces to face up 
to the tactics and the vast fire power of the LTTE, but that 
is a small comfort in the current context." 
Rajakarunanayake contended repeated LTTE attacks following 
tough statements by the international community are "a 
bloody reminder of the contempt the LTTE attaches to such 
warnings." 
 
¶3. (U) Similarly, in the government-owned Sunday Observer 
(1/15) an op-ed titled "Government withstands provocative 
attacks," an unidentified "Special Defense Correspondent" 
argued the LTTE attack on a Naval bus on January 12 "looks 
like a tit for tat act against the United States warning the 
LTTE on the previous day...  Prabhakaran's decisions in 
defiance of America's warning are the best evidence for the 
international community to judge the LTTE's terrorism and 
non-commitment towards peace through negotiation...  [The 
attack] would no doubt open the eyes of the Co-Chairs 
including the United States to understand that the LTTE's 
sole aim is not freedom for the Tamils, but terrorism." 
 
¶4. (U) Mainstream independent English media drew attention 
to the seeming Tiger contempt for the international 
community's warnings against continued violence. Daily 
Mirror (01/17) columnist Thanuka expressed concern about an 
editorial appearing on an unspecified pro-LTTE website that 
argued in response to Ambassador Lunstead's statement, "The 
LTTE cannot be threatened by words or deeds.  The LTTE 
fought the Indians 18 years ago.  Just stop and think how 
far the LTTE has militarily progressed and what progress the 
Sinhalese have made in that period."  Thanuka contended not 
only would the LTTE ignore U.S. warnings, but that it would 
express spite against them. 
 
¶5. (U) The Sinhala nationalist press ranted against the LTTE 
but also chastised the United States and the international 
community for not doing more to pressure the Tigers.  The 
editors of the independent Island (01/14), in an editorial 
titled "Slapping Uncle Sam," argued, "Foreign powers may see 
an opportunity in Sri Lanka's conflict for them to pursue 
their hidden agendas in the region.  The defiance of the 
LTTE stems not from its capability to take on the US or any 
of its allies.  Instead it stems from the [LTTE's] 
confidence that whatever it does, they will not go to the 
extent of helping Sri Lanka militarily."  The editorial 
continued, "The LTTE is running an academy of terrorism, 
training terrorists in other countries like the Maoist 
guerillas in Nepal.  The way it is running rough shod over 
the US and other foreign powers must be inspiring to the 
terror-minded in the world.  Even bin Laden must think he 
has a lesson to learn from the LTTE... It is time for the Co- 
Chairs to tell the world whether they are for the sovereign 
state of Sri Lanka or the LTTE.  President Bush told the 
world after the 9/11 attacks, `either you are with us or 
with them [terrorists]!'  Now that the LTTE has asked the US 
to go to hell, the Co-Chairs must make up their minds what 
to do with the LTTE."  The Sinhala-language Diviana, sister 
paper to the Island, ran a very similar editorial, arguing, 
"Mr. Ambassador, you should be better informed.  The Tigers 
respond only with bullets and Claymore mines.  Don't waste 
your words on their behalf." 
 
¶6. (U) The independent Sinhala press exaggerated the United 
States' intention to provide resources and engagement to the 
Sri Lankan forces if the LTTE decides to return to war. 
Independent Sinhala Sunday Lakbima (01/15) quoted political 
affairs analyst Mohan Samaranayake contending "The U.S. has 
shown the Tigers that if they won't cease their violence the 
US is ready to control them." Independent Sinhala Sunday 
Lankadeepa (sister paper to the mainstream Sunday Times and 
Daily Mirror) claimed: "America's warning sets example to 
other countries too.  We salute the American Ambassador who 
emphasized the US is not prepared to mollycoddle the Tigers. 
Now the other countries also should speak up for peace.  All 
should realize the LTTE poses a danger to the region and the 
world." 
 
¶7. (U) Independent Tamil media harped on the Sinhala press's 
emphasis on U.S. military assistance against the Tigers. 
Independent Tamil daily Thinakkural (1/14) carried a 
statement by the Buddhist monk-led, Sinhala nationalist 
Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) stating: "The U.S. must assist 
Sri Lanka with arms and training of our military."  In the 
Sunday Thinakkural (1/15), Tamil defense analyst Vidhuran 
(pseudonym) contended: "At a time the country's security 
situation is weak, U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Lunstead's 
statement raises doubts whether the chances for peace talks 
are fading.  By implying the United States would support the 
Sri Lanka Military in a war against the LTTE, the Ambassador 
may not have realized his words could jeopardize chances for 
peace talks and cripple Norway's efforts.  America has 
failed to realize that Tamil civilians are killed everyday 
in the North and East by the security forces in retaliation 
to the grenade attacks on them. The Sinhala and English 
media give maximum publicity to attacks on the security 
forces [and] try to pin the killings of innocent Tamils onto 
the LTTE."  Flagship Tamil paper, Virakesari (1/15) also 
emphasized the promise of U.S. military support in an op-ed, 
arguing: "U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Lunstead's speech has made 
the government and the Sinhala extremists happy. He has 
confirmed the U.S. government would provide training and 
military assistance to the Sri Lankan forces but has said 
very little about the peace process." 
 
 
¶8. (U) Pro-LTTE media emphasized Foreign Minister Managala 
Samaraweera's alleged failure in Washington to blacklist the 
Tigers and misconstrued the Ambassador's strongly worded 
speech.  In an op-ed titled, "India and the U.S. trying hard 
to stop the resumption of war," pro-LTTE Tamil daily Sudar 
Oli (1/16) political analyst M. Thirunavukarasu argued: "The 
U.S. did not promise anything big when Sri Lankan Foreign 
Minister Mangala Samaraweera visited the U.S.  Then, the 
U.S. Ambassador made a speech the day after the attack on 
the SL Navy boat that killed 13 soldiers.  The Ambassador 
made three important contentions in his speech, but the 
Sinhala and English media prioritized only one issue out of 
the three. That is that the LTTE would have to face stronger 
Lankan forces.  But the Ambassador also mentioned `what kind 
of leaders are those who oppose the rights and aspirations 
of its people' and aiming his comments at President Mahinda 
Rajapakse."  (Note: In the speech, the Ambassador questioned 
the leadership of the LTTE. End note) 
 
¶9. (SBU) Comment: As in previous commentary, English and 
Sinhala media argued the Ambassador's warnings to the Tigers 
were toothless in the face of the organization's 
intransigence.  Sinhala and Sinhala nationalist media over- 
emphasized the promise of U.S. military support.  Tamil and 
pro-LTTE media decried this misrepresentation by sections of 
the pro-Sinhala press, but polarized the issue with 
distortions, including redirecting the Ambassador's 
criticism of the LTTE's lack of responsible leadership to 
President Rajapaksa.  Among the Tamil press, the speech 
generated defensive Op-Ed's and letters to the editor 
arguing the U.S. statement, while correctly denouncing 
violence, overlooked legitimate grievances of the Tamil 
population.  The enduring and sharp reaction to the 
Ambassador's speech is interesting given that the address 
contained nothing new in terms of U.S. policy or attitudes. 
However, the current tense climate and daily attacks have 
heated up the war of words as well, and media pundits are 
looking closely at what the U.S. says and does.  End 
Comment. 
 
Lunstead