US embassy cable - 02ABUJA3033

C O N F I D E N T I A L ABUJA 003033 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
LONDON FOR CGURNEY: PLEASE PASS TO A/S KANSTEINER AND AMB. 
JETER 
 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/20/2012 
TAGS: PGOV, PREL, KDEM, NI 
SUBJECT: NIGERIA:  FRIENDS OF NIGERIA MEET ON INEC 
PERFORMANCE 
 
 
REF: ABUJA 2831 
 
 
Classified by Ambassador Howard F. Jeter.  Reasons:  1.5 (B & 
D). 
 
 
1. (C)  SUMMARY:  Ambassador Jeter hosted a second meeting 
with Chiefs of Mission of Germany, France, Canada, and the 
U.K. on October 15 to discuss upcoming Nigerian elections. 
This meeting concentrated on the flawed registration 
process, elections monitors and the need for an agreed upon 
standard by which to judge Nigeria's 2003 elections.  The 
group agreed that it should meet with INEC before 
discussing appropriate responses to its perceived failings. 
The group also agreed to meet again following an expected 
meeting with INEC.  End Summary. 
 
 
2.  (C)  Ambassador Jeter invited the Chiefs of Mission of 
Germany, France, Canada and the U.K. to continue 
discussions (reftel) October 15.  Canadian High 
Commissioner Howard Strauss, reflecting the broad consensus 
of the group, commented that the flawed registration 
process was the most pressing issue.  He commented that 
this group needed to consider whether to support the 
political process directly through INEC or indirectly 
through NGOs.  "Without our support," Strauss commented, 
"the process is doomed to failure."  Acting British High 
Commissioner Charles Bird cautioned that the group should 
avoid two pitfalls:  "we do not want to validate a flawed 
process and we do not want to be seen leading INEC."  The 
group agreed that without more information from INEC, it 
would be impossible to assess the process.  While all 
agreed on the flaws, it is still impossible to attribute 
the poor performance of INEC to either incompetence or 
malfeasance (or a combination of the two).  The group 
agreed that Canadian High Commissioner Howard Strauss 
should pursue the promised meeting with INEC and report 
back. 
 
 
3.  (C)  Discussion of monitors for Nigeria's elections 
took a back seat to the immediate registration issues.  The 
group agreed that the President and INEC were "passing the 
buck" on invitations for elections monitors, each, 
according to Ambassador Jeter, claiming that the other bore 
primary responsibility for decisions on international 
monitors.  Bird suggested "breaking the circle" by 
coordinating a list independently.  DCM Andrews concurred, 
suggesting that a joint U.S.-U.K. list of proposed 
locations of U.S. and British monitors might assist the 
UNDP in developing its own priorities. 
 
 
4.  (C)  Ambassador Jeter raised the issue of elections 
standards, asking if the INEC and other elections 
structures had sufficient capacity to come close to a 
"free-and-fair" election.  Varying standards were suggested 
including the Carter Center report from the 1999 elections 
and the SADC standards, developed during the recent voting 
in Zimbabwe. 
 
 
5.  (C)  COMMENT:  All attendees at this meeting agreed 
that meeting with INEC was necessary before pursuing 
discussions on the viability of elections in 2003.  The 
group continues to provide a useful forum for comparing and 
coordinating positions related to the upcoming 2003 
election cycle.  In collaboration with these like-minded 
countries, we will continue to use every opportunity to 
reinforce our message to Nigerian elections officials, 
individually and collectively, as the 2003 elections 
approach. 
ANDREWS