http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/09/17/us-diplomatic-cables-usnorway-initiated-ltte-surrender-%E2%80%98third-party%E2%80%99


US diplomatic cables: US/Norway initiated LTTE surrender to ‘Third Party’

Sun, 2011-09-18 02:10 — editor

News
Daya Gamage – US Bureau Asian Tribune
Washington, DC. 18 September (Asiantribune.com):
In one of the US State Department classified diplomatic cables dated 05 March 2009 sent by Ambassador Robert Blake to assistant secretary Richard Boucher was very clear that the LTTE, in the face of a total military defeat in the hands of the advancing Sri Lankan forces, was not prepared to lay down their arms and surrender contrary to reports that later emerged about their attempted surrender.
The diplomatic cable titled ‘Co-Chair ambassadors discuss ways to pressure GSL and LTTE’, it quoted the Norwegian ambassador as saying about his dialogue with the LTTE leadership that “He told the LTTE that Norway´s highest priority is saving as many lives as possible. He emphasized that the LTTE must lay down arms. The LTTE acknowledged that they face military defeat, but did not indicate that they were prepared to lay down their arms. The LTTE has made clear to Norway that they do not see outright surrender as an option.”
In another cable dated 27 April 2009 the United States and Norway were very much interested in getting the LTTE to surrender to a ‘Third Party’.
The most revealing paragraph of the 05 March 2009 classified cable said:
(Begin Quote) The Norwegian Ambassador reviewed Norway´s quiet diplomatic efforts to pressure the LTTE to release these civilians trapped in the north. He reported several recent contacts with the LTTE in which he argued that under international humanitarian law they are required to allow civilians to leave the conflict area. He told the LTTE that Norway´s highest priority is saving as many lives as possible. He emphasized that the LTTE must lay down arms. The LTTE acknowledged that they face military defeat, but did not indicate that they were prepared to lay down their arms. The LTTE has made clear to Norway that they do not see outright surrender as an option. Ambassador added that U.S. and others have been active in working with the Tamil Bishops, NGOs, and some in the Tamil Diaspora to request that they use their influence with the LTTE to persuade them to release the civilians. Ambassador also suggested it would be useful for the Ambassadors of countries with significant Tamil Diaspora communities to meet in Colombo to coordinate messages to our respective Diasporas. The Co-Chairs agreed this was a useful suggestion. The Canadian Ambassador has agreed to host such a meeting within the next week, to include representatives from Canada, Australia, the U.S., Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, the U.K., Germany, France, and Italy. (End Quote)
In another classified diplomatic cable prepared by Colombo’s American Embassy to Washington under the signature Charge’ de Affairs Moore (which the text of the cable notes as Charge) dated 27 April 2009 gives a vivid picture how the United States and Norway were interested in a surrender of the LTTE which was facing an imminent military defeat. Whether the Western powers wanted to save the LTTE or help the Government of Sri Lanka to save the civilians trapped in the battle zone can be judged by the reader when he goes through the text of the diplomatic cable.
Here is the 27 April 2009 US diplomatic cable. The Asian Tribune presents four relevant paragraphs of the cable.
(Begin Text) On April 24 evening, Foreign Minister Bogollagama summoned the EU and Japanese Ambassadors and Charge to the MFA on short notice. Foreign Secretary Kohona and several other MFA officials also attended. The meeting occurred within hours of a visit to Colombo on April 24 by Indian National Security Adviser Narayanan and Foreign Secretary Menon. A discussion of the Co-Chairs´ proposal for a mediated surrender by the LTTE ensued. Charge inquired why the Norwegian Ambassador had not been invited to the meeting.
The Foreign Minister replied, "We no longer recognize Norway as a member of the Co-Chairs." Charge and Ambassadors present stated that this "expulsion" was unacceptable and broke off the meeting to seek guidance from capitals. In a side conversation after the meeting, Bogollagama told Charge that if the Co-Chairs felt strongly about the exclusion of Norway, the GSL might reconsider. The Sri Lankan government now appears to be backing off its attempt to exclude Norway from the Co-Chairs, claiming that the question concerned only whether there was still any role for Norway as the facilitator of moribund peace talks. No accounts of the episode have yet reached the press, which may help us to walk the GSL back from its position.
Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama summoned Charge, the Japanese Ambassador, the chief of the EU delegation in Sri Lanka and the Swedish Charge (representing the Czech EU presidency locally) to the Foreign Ministry on short notice on the evening of April 24. The meeting occurred shortly after the departure from Colombo of Indian National Security Adviser Narayanan and Foreign Secretary Menon. Bogollagama opened by saying that he had spoken earlier that day to the French Foreign Minister and EU Commissioner. He added that Charge had phoned him the same afternoon to brief him on the Co-Chairs´ April 23 conference call and the Co-Chairs´ desire to work with the government to achieve a mediated surrender by the LTTE. He said he called in the Co-Chair Ambassadors to seek clarification as to how such a process would work. Charge emphasized that the goal was to stop the killing and save civilian lives. He described a process, as discussed in the Co-Chairs´ call, whereby the LTTE would lay down its weapons and its cadres would surrender to a third party, most probably the UN.
The GSL would extend amnesty to all but the top leadership and commit to reintegrating the cadres into society. Charge noted that in seeking to gain agreement from the LTTE to such a process, the third party would stress strong international support for the rapid return of IDPs and the need for progress toward a political resolution of the root causes of the conflict.
Bogollagama and Foreign Secretary Kohona asked if this would entail "negotiations" with the LTTE. EU Head of Delegation Savage said it would not; it would be a "mediated," not negotiated, surrender. Kohona asked what the role of the third party would be and why the LTTE leadership could not simply surrender to the government and turn arms over to them. Charge explained the LTTE had clearly demonstrated by its actions that it was unwilling to do so. Third party participation was needed as a face-saving, confidence-building measure.
Again, the overriding goal was to save civilian lives. Kohona dismissed the role of the third party, since once the LTTE leadership surrendered they would be turned over to the government anyway. Charge replied that missed the point, and that a neutral third party such as the ICRC or UN was critical to induce the LTTE to surrender and hasten the end of the conflict.
The Minister and Foreign Secretary then asked if we had an indication that the LTTE would agree to this type of mediated surrender. At this point, Charge inquired whether the Norwegian Ambassador had intentionally not been invited to the meeting, to which Bogollagama responded, "We no longer recognize Norway as part of the Co-Chair mechanism." Co-Chair Ambassadors were unanimous in stating that this was unacceptable, that Norway was a key member of the Co-Chair group from the beginning, and remained an integral part of it. Charge stressed that the GSL´s position would be viewed in a very negative light by capitals and was a serious matter. The Co-Chair Ambassadors agreed to conclude the meeting and seek guidance from capitals. Afterwards, Bogollagama pulled Charge aside and said, "If you Co-Chairs feel so strongly about Norway, maybe we can reconsider." (End Text)
- Asian Tribune -