FRIENDS OF NIGERIA HEADS OF MISSION MEETING

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 002831

SIPDIS


E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/10/2012
TAGS: PGOV PREL KDEM NI
SUBJECT: FRIENDS OF NIGERIA HEADS OF MISSION MEETING


Classified by Ambassador Howard F. Jeter. Reasons 1.5 (B &
D).



1. (C) SUMMARY: Ambassador Jeter hosted a meeting with
Chiefs of Mission of Germany, France, Canada, and the U.K.
on October 7 to discuss upcoming Nigerian elections. The
Ambassador identified the need to coordinate exchanges of
information and to possibly develop coordinated policies
among this "friends of Nigeria" group. The group came to
broad consensus on the need to engage the Presidency and
INEC over perceived shortcomings, particularly in voters
registration, and to offer encouragement to Nigerian
officials to improve the upcoming electoral process. The
friends group agreed on the utility of regular meetings to
discuss election issues, and scheduled a follow-on meeting
October 15 to discuss the flawed voters registration
process and the issue of international elections monitors.
End Summary.



2. (C) Ambassador Jeter invited the Chiefs of Mission of
Germany, France, Canada and the U.K. to meet October 7 to
discuss the recently concluded voters registration exercise
and possible coordination of diplomatic approaches to the
GON on the electoral process. There was broad consensus on
the current political situation in Nigeria, with all
agreeing that the recent impeachment move was intended to
prevent President Olusegun Obasanjo from seeking re-
election. German Ambassador Dietmar Kreusel commented that
the impeachment process was designed primarily to convince
Obasanjo to withdraw his candidacy and that Obasanjo had
lost most of his support in the North. With widespread
disaffection and large portions of his own party turning
against him, Kreusel speculated, Obasanjo will not be able
to "save himself by just paying out money." The tone of
Kreusel's statement implied that he wanted the group to be
supportive of Obasanjo's reelection. The group agreed that
the party conventions and gubernatorial elections would
also provide the opportunity for further disorder in the
political arena.



3. (C) All participants agreed that feedback from the
registration process "was not great." The question,
according to Canadian High Commissioner Howard Strauss, was
whether it was conducted in a manner acceptable to
Nigerians. Acting British High Commissioner Charles Bird
concurred and commented that HMG would not be able to
validate elections based solely on the results of this
registration. Still, he wondered if it would be possible
to work with its results and move forward if actions are
taken to improve the registration and other pre-election
preparations. One of the greatest difficulties identified
by the group was that INEC appears to have no firm timeline
for the conduct of the elections. Without this, according
to French Ambassador Jean-Marc Simon, it is impossible to
judge whether adequate preparations have been made. "The
1999 elections were not perfect, but this one could be
worse," he concluded.



4. (C) The group then discussed broad outlines for an
acceptable election. Bird cautioned that efforts by the
international community should not be seen as biased
towards or against any candidate, but rather should focus
on the process. This was seconded by Ambassador Jeter.
Bird said that HMG's goal is not just an election, but
stability for Nigeria in its aftermath. There was no
agreement on the benchmarks on which to judge the
elections, especially on the "free-and-fair" standard;
however, it was agreed that this subject would be the
subject of future meetings. Bird stated that the HMG would
accept elections which are "broadly acceptable to the
majority of Nigerians and which are not challenged in the
courts." There was some agreement among the guests that
elections would not be conducted well, but that if the
results are "reasonable and acceptable to Nigerians," the
standards should be relaxed. However, cautioned Jeter, "we
can not set a different standard for Nigeria."



5. (C) Kreusel said that the European Union (EU) had
already agreed to a budget for observers for the Nigerian
elections; however the clear EU preference was for a
mission designed to observe both electoral preparations and
conduct. Two problems still facing any proposed observer
mission were the lack of a timetable for elections and
uncertainty of what the goals of the mission should be.
Kreusel asked rhetorically whether it would be preferable
to mount a strong mission, which would be subject to
Nigerian elite criticism, or to back off and watch the
process deteriorate. Jeter commented that U.S. observers
will act independently from the USG, and we do not
influence their conclusions. Kreusel confirmed similar
expectations for the European observers. Bird warned that
HMG viewed the 1999 elections as the baseline for
expectations in 2003, and that the Nigerians should strive
to improve on that performance.



6. (C) All participants agreed that three separate
avenues should be explored: public statements supporting
INEC's efforts and encouraging more effective action;
collective approaches to INEC highlighting deficiencies in
the process and pushing it to take responsibility; and
individual but coordinated approaches to the Presidency
with warnings of the dangers of failed elections. Kreusel
suggested that the EU would discuss the issuance of a
public statement to encourage rather than criticize the
process at the earliest opportunity. Ambassador Jeter
suggested that the USG would explore the issuance of a
similar, parallel statement.



7. (C) COMMENT: All attendees at this meeting agreed
that the registration process, as it stands, has serious
deficiencies that create the potential for poisoning
elections based on the exercise. The attendees also
agreed that the process is salvageable. There is a
similarity of Western views on the election process;
however, there may be some divergence as the process moves
forward, especially with the German and French.
Nevertheless, the convening of this group appears to be a
useful mechanism and we will continue with this initiative.
We will await the formulation of the EU public statement;
Embassy will develop a parallel statement, clearing it with
Washington before the statement is issued.
JETER