EU ANALYSIS FINDS NO SUPPORT FOR BEMBA FRAUD CLAIMS

UNCLAS KINSHASA 001778 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV KDEM KPKO CG ELECTIONS SUBJECT: EU ANALYSIS FINDS NO SUPPORT FOR BEMBA FRAUD CLAIMS REF: A. KINSHASA 1774 ¶B. KINSHASA 1765 ¶C. KINSHASA 1759 ¶D. KINSHASA 1754 ¶1. (U) An analysis by the European Union (EU) Electoral Observer Mission of votes cast in the October 29 presidential election does not support charges of widespread fraud raised by Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba and his supporters in complaints to the Independent Electoral Commission (ref A) and the Supreme Court (ref B). ¶2. (U) The EU mission analysis, released November 17, focused on three systemic issues: the high number of ballots cast by special dispensation ("derogation") (ref C),the effect of these ballots on the election results, and purported discrepancies between vote counts by Bemba party witnesses and those posted by the Independent Electoral Commission (CEI). ¶3. (U) The EU analysts found that election officials often erroneously tallied two distinct categories of voters together with those voting by special dispensation: "special list" and "omitted list" voters. They concluded that these two groups accounted for only a minority of votes listed in the special dispensation category and were the result of mislabeling rather than fraud. They stated that poll workers should have recorded both classes of voters on separate lists, and only at a limited number of designated polling centers. ¶4. (U) The EU analysts concluded that votes by special dispensation did not influence the outcome of the election. Assuming 12 legitimate votes by dispensation at each of the 50,045 polling centers, the EU estimated that a remaining maximum number of 650,000 out of some 1,100,000 votes by special dispensation could potentially be considered incorrectly labeled. The EU's statement noted that even in the theoretical case that all 650,000 were fraudulent and that all had been in favor of one candidate, the final result would not have changed. President Joseph Kabila's margin of victory was 2.6 million votes -- far more than the number of votes in question. ¶5. (U) The EU mission also compared the official CEI vote counts with those recorded by its observers at nearly 1,000 polling stations. They found no significant divergence between EU observer counts and official final numbers posted by the CEI. ¶6. (U) In a November 20 interview with Radio France International, Eric de Palieres, the deputy chief of the EU observer mission, allowed that irregularities and even minor fraud had occurred during the voting. He said that irregularities were equally evident in western provinces that favored Bemba, especially Equateur, and in eastern provinces that favored Kabila, especially Katanga. He emphasized that the mission had found no evidence that these irregularities changed the result of the election. ¶7. (U) Comment: Bemba's court challenge claiming the result of the election should be set aside due to irregularities in the electoral process hinges on many of the claims refuted by the EU analysis. Other observer missions, including the Carter Center (ref D),have commented publicly on the results, but neither they nor any source not affiliated with Bemba's camp has found evidence to support the Bemba's camp claims of fraud. End comment. MEECE