From: <a href="http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article3955964.ece">Aftenposten</a><br>
Date: 12.6.2006

<pre>
2006-06-12 13:57
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 
</pre>