NIGERIA: RESPONSE TO UN RESOLUTION ON CUBA

C O N F I D E N T I A L ABUJA 001218 SIPDIS DEPT FOR AF/W AND IO E.O. 12958: 18/04/02 TAGS: PREL PHUM NI UNHRC SUBJECT: NIGERIA: RESPONSE TO UN RESOLUTION ON CUBA REF: A.) ABUJA 1164 B.) STATE 64509 C.) STATE 65639 CLASSIFIED BY CDA ANDREWS FOR REASON 1.5(D) ¶1. (C) MFA Permanent Secretary Hart was surprisingly open to the possibility of a Nigerian abstention after hearing our points April 17. Hart agreed that the language was mild, saying, "Cuba should have nothing to fear" from it." He said that he would discuss the resolution with Foreign Minister Lamido when he returned from Dakar. Hart also planned to contact Nigeria's Ambassador in Geneva. ¶2. (C) Hart was particularly interested in the degree of support the resolution had within GRULAC. Embassy April 18 sent him a second copy of the resolution, with co-sponsors appended, under cover of a Note requesting Nigeria to vote "yes" on Friday. ¶3. (C) Hart told us afternoon of April 18 that Nigeria's Ambassador in Geneva had not returned his telephone call from mid-morning. The original instructions had been to vote in line with Nigerian practice (i.e., against the resolution),but there had been a discussion with Lamido and others following our demarche (para one) and receipt of our Note. It had been agreed that the Uruguayan draft offered an approach to CUBA new enough that further study was merited. Hart said someone from his office was enroute to Geneva and that he would speak with that officer evening of April 18 if Nigeria's Ambassador did not return his call in the interim. The Ambassador, said Hart, had been asked to consult with the Kenyan, Senegalese and Sierra Leonean delegations, as well as to report on Latin sentiment. ¶4. (C) COMMENT: Nigeria's Ambassador is Geneva was provided instructions based on the GON's experience with past CUBA resolutions. We do not know whether he is playing a useful or negative role. The knowledge that he has not returned Hart's call leaves us ill at ease, notwithstanding Hart's comment that the Ambassador is doubtless very busy with his leading role in the African Group. Clearly, there is at least some thought in Abuja of abstaining, but Nigeria's Ambassador -- perhaps having staked out a position in the African Group that he does not want to give up -- appears not to be engaging in that dialogue with his capital. We have no objection to USDEL informing Nigeria's Ambassador that Embassy Abuja has held fruitful discussions with very senior levels of the GON and encouraging him to call home. We would strongly encourage USDEL to motivate supportive members of GRULAC to approach the Nigerian delegation and urge Nigeria to take the lead within the African Group and vote "yes." We have intimated in our conversations, but not stated directly, that the Latins are doing on CUBA what Africa should be doing through NePAD and that the wishes of the responsible regional group deserve respect. ANDREWS