12.6.2006: Sri Lanka talks disintegrate in Oslo
Dette dokumentet er omtalt her:
C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000759
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/12/2016
TAGS: PREL, PTER, MARR, PINS, CE, NO
SUBJECT: SRI LANKA TALKS DISINTEGRATE IN OSLO
Classified By: Pol/Econ Counselor Mike Hammer, Reasons
1.4 (b) and (d)
1.(C) Summary. Oslo talks scheduled between the Government
of Sri Lanka (GSL) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE) abruptly terminated before even starting on June 8.
The talks were meant to assess the current situation in Sri
Lanka and address the safety (and security) of the Sri Lanka
Monitoring Mission (SLMM). According to Norway¥s Special
Envoy to Sri Lanka Jon Hanssen-Bauer, the talks did not occur
for a variety of reasons, including the LTTE¥s intent to only
speak with Norway (refusing to directly deal with the GSL
delegation), objection to the composition of the GSL
delegation and its dissatisfaction with the EU¥s recent
designation of the LTTE as a terrorist organization.
Hanssen-Bauer noted that the GSL delegation was instructed by
its government to retun home, given that the GSL "felt that
its delegaion arrived in Norway on a different premise."
The Norwegians, concerned with the state of affairs in Sri
Lanka, drafted letters to both the Sri Lankan President and
the LTTE¥s leader which requested responses to five
"critical" questions. Responses to these questions are due
by June 20. End Summary.
Norwegian Press Statement: "Grave Situation" in Sri Lanka
2.(U) The Norwegian government issued a press tatement on
June 8, which stated that the reason for the Oslo meeting¥s
cancellation was based upo LTTE objections. In addition,
the statement imlicitly addressed the recent EU terrorist
organiation designation, noting that the LTTE would not
accept SLMM monitors originating from states which included
the LTTE on terrorist organization lists. The press
statement pointed out that 37 out of the 57 SLMM monitors
originated from such countries.
3.(U) Stating that the Norwegian government was "profoundly
concerned" with the situation, Norwegian Minister of
International Development Solheim sent letters to the GSL
President and the LTTE leader posing the following questions:
a. Will the parties stand committed to the Ceasefire
Agreement (CFA) of 22 February 2002?
b. Do the parties want the continued existence and operation
of the SLMM as a mission coordinated, facilitated and led by
the Royal Norwegian Government with diplomatic immunity to
ensure its impartial operation?
c. Are the parties able to provide full security guarantees
for all monitors, employees and physical assets of the SLMM
in all situations, in accordance with CFA Article 3.9?
d. Will the parties accept amendments to CFA Article 3.5 in
order to enable the continued functioning of the SLMM at its
current operational levels and with necessary security
e. In the event that the amendments to Article 3.5 are made,
will the parties provide full security guarantees for current
SLMM personnel and assets during a six-month transition phase
until an amended solution has been identified, decided and
The Norwegian government stipulated that responses were to be
provided by June 20, 2006.
4.(C) On June 12 Special Envoy Hanssen-Bauer held a special
briefing for Norway's diplomatic corps, discussing the issues
raised in the June 8 press statement. While addressing the
various questions in the letter from Minister Solheim,
Hanssen-Bauer specifically addressed the point concerning
amendments to the SLMM composition. He stated that it was
impossible for Norway and Iceland to carry on the current
monitoring mission alone. As such, the GSL and LTTE could
either accept that the SLMM would be reduced (with the SLMM's
mission thereby being jeopardized) or allow other countries
to provide monitors.
5. Comment. The surprisingly frank tone of both the press
statement and the diplomatic corps briefing clearly indicate
Norway¥s deep concerns with the current Sri Lankan crises,
and its disappointment with the failure of the Oslo talks.
Hanssen-Bauer echoed Minister Solheim's statement that "the
two parties have not listened to advice" and must "stand by
their responsibilities themselves." Drafting letters to the
two parties with specific questions (and a set deadline for
responses) illustrates not only concern for the worsening
situation, but a clear call that the parties, should they
wish to continue the negotiations process, take direct
responsibility for their actions.
Visit Oslo's Classified website: