12.6.2006: Sri Lanka talks disintegrate in Oslo

C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000759

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

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

guarantees?

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

fully implemented?

The Norwegian government stipulated that responses were to be

provided by June 20, 2006.

Hanssen-Bauer's Briefing

------------------------

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:

http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/oslo/index.cf m

WEBSTER

2006-06-12 13:57