WASHINGTON MEETING PROBLEMS

C O N F I D E N T I A L ABUJA 001597

SIPDIS

FOR AF ASSISTANT SECRETARY NEWMAN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/16/2014
TAGS: PREL EFIN KCOR NI
SUBJECT: WASHINGTON MEETING PROBLEMS

REF: A. STATE 146118


B. ABUJA 1323

Classified By: Ambassador John Campbell for Reasons 1.5 (B & D).


1. (C) It seems we may be getting to the point of diminishing
returns on the many invitations to GON officials, especially
the Economic Dream Team, for participation in meetings
outside Nigeria. We delivered the October 4 G8
transparency/anti-corruption follow-up meeting invitation
(Ref A) on September 14 to Finance Minister Ngozi's office,
which has passed it to Ngozi. We have no response from
Ngozi, but GON anti-corruption czar Oby Ezekwesili met with
Poloffs September 16, and was very downbeat.


2. (C) Oby said the GON would probably send her, not Ngozi,
and asked if the G8 meeting could be postponed. She noted
that the GON had not really come to grips with putting
together the Technical Action Plan for the October 4 meeting
would address (despite the August 6 POTUS letter to President
Obasanjo asking the GON to work its Plan with economic
officials at the October 4 meeting),but most of her
unhappiness was that she had to be at three other
international meetings in different countries that week. We
have explained that the G8 meeting cannot be postponed, as it
was scheduled to get officials from all the G8 countries and
the four transparency/anti-corruption pilot countries
together around UNGA and World Bank meetings, but her
complaints had resonance for a different reason.


3. (C) We are not suggesting that the October 4 meeting be
rescheduled; Nigerian participation in the G8
transparency/anti-corruption program is important. There is
a more general issue. Inviting the Economic Dream Team to a
continuing high volume of meetings may run two related risks.
The first is that they promote confusion within the GON as
to what our priorities are. For example, in addition to the
anti-corruption meeting, the Department is also inviting
other senior Nigerians to another set of meetings that same
October 4 in Washington about NEPAD. We know which is more
important, but the Nigerians could be forgiven for not
understanding our priorities -- and also that it is the GON's
actions in Nigeria that are most important, rather than
attendance at meetings outside the country.


4. (C) The second risk is that inviting senior Nigerians to
so many meetings outside Nigeria may promote confusion within
the GON, and Nigerian society, as to what the GON's
priorities are. As I touched upon in Ref B, there already
seems to be some suspicion outside the GON that its economic
reforms are designed to improve its standing abroad, rather
than being about meaningful socio-economic change. Not only
is it distracting for Nigeria's Economic Dream Team to spend
so much of its time outside Nigeria instead of inside Nigeria
working on Nigeria's problems, but it also reinforces
perceptions here that economic reform is primarily to impress
foreigners. We may need to be more cautious about how often
we invite to Washington high level members of Nigeria's
economic reform team.
CAMPBELL