Donor Ambassadors Initiate Dialogue on Election Support

C O N F I D E N T I A L PORT AU PRINCE 000961 NOFORN SIPDIS STATE FOR S, C, WHA AND DRL AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PASS TO AMCONSUL QUEBEC E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/12/04 TAGS: PGOV PREL EAID HA SUBJECT: Donor Ambassadors Initiate Dialogue on Election Support REF: PAP 1006 CLASSIFIED BY: Kenneth Merten, Ambassador; REASON: 1.4(B),(D) ¶1. (C) Summary: At a December 1 meeting of Ambassadors representing the election donor group (US, Canada, UN, EU and Brazil),there was general agreement that the international community should provide assistance to help carry out the upcoming elections in Haiti despite donor frustration over the decision by the Electoral Council (CEP) to exclude Lavalas and the CEP's reneging on its commitment to the donors to give Lavalas a chance to get its documents in order (reftel). All agreed that Preval and the CEP will not go back on the decision to exclude Lavalas. UN SRSG Annabi proposed that the way forward is for the donors to convoke a technical level ''table sectorielle'' to coordinate election assistance, to meet as a group with Preval to express disappointment with the decision to exclude Lavalas and to extract a commitment from him of greater transparency in the election process, and then to hold a joint press conference to announce donor support for the elections and to call publicly for transparency. End summary. ¶2. (C) On 1 December, the Ambassador of Brazil hosted a meeting of the Ambassadors of the countries that have traditionally provided support to elections in Haiti (US, Canada, UN, EU, Spain and Brazil) to begin a dialogue on support for the upcoming Haitian elections. Central to the discussion was whether the international community should support the elections after the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP),almost certainly in conjunction with President Preval, had decided to exclude Lavalas (among other parties) from participating in the upcoming elections. The Canadian Ambassador argued that support for the elections as they now stand would be interpreted by many in Haiti as support for Preval and the CEP's decision against Lavalas. The Canadian Ambassador said that the CEP had acted in bad faith in telling the donors they would reconsider their exclusion of Lavalas if Lavalas could present the documents required by law to register their candidacy, only to come out 24 hours later with a statement to the press saying that their decision was final. ''If this is the kind of partnership we have with the CEP going into the elections, what kind of transparency can we expect from them as the process unfolds?'' ¶3. (C) All agreed that Preval and the CEP would not to go back on their decision to exclude Lavalas and others. The EU representative noted that the international community has too much invested in Haiti's democracy to walk away from the upcoming elections, despite its imperfections. Ambassador Merten argued for meeting with the CEP and Preval to hold them accountable for the transparency of the electoral process, and then supporting a robust election observation effort that will put additional pressure on the GOH to conduct a transparent election. The EU opined that Preval would not respond to donor pressure, and advocated instead going directly to the media to express donor dissatisfaction with the exclusion of Lavalas and calling for the GOH to be more transparent in the conduct of these elections than they have been up until now. ¶4. (C) The EU and Canadian Ambassadors said that Preval's actions to date have emasculated the opposition and that unless international donors are prepared to help level the playing field, the opposition will cease to be much of a meaningful force in the next government. The EU suggested that donors purchase radio air time for opposition politicians to plug their candidacies. UN SRSG Annabi noted that the radio gives virtually unfettered access to politicians opposed to the government and said that lack of access to the media is not a problem faced by the opposition parties in Haiti. ¶5. (C) Annabi proposed that the way forward would be for the election donors to first convoke a technical level ''table sectorielle'' to discuss with the GOH its election support needs and to coordinate possible donor assistance. Second, he suggested that the group of donors meet with President Preval to say that the exclusion of Lavalas (and others) undermines international confidence in the transparency of the elections and call on Preval to take measures to ensure that the process is free and fair. Annabi, echoing the EU Ambassador, said that the donors should tell Preval that we are prepared to ''use the bullhorn'' (i.e. denounce electoral violations publicly) if the GOH or CEP take actions that undermine the credibility of the elections. And finally, Annabi proposed that the donors call a joint press conference to announce that they will be providing assistance to the election process, and telling the Haitian people that they will be vigilant that elections are free and fair. ¶6. (C) Comment: Having obtained assurances from the CEP in late November that it would revisit the exclusion of Lavalas, the election donor Ambassadors were frustrated that donor leverage was insufficient to guarantee an inclusive election. While Lavalas clearly shares in the blame for its exclusion (for not turning in the proper documentation),it comes out of this process looking like a martyr and Haitians will believe (correctly) that Preval is manipulating the election. Without donor support, the electoral timetable risks slipping dangerously, threatening a timely presidential succession. It is important that we support these elections, and that we use our leverage to ensure a maximum of transparency, inclusion, and adherence to rules. MERTEN