This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 003100 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL EAID PGOV XA NI
SUBJECT: NIGERIA: POLITICAL PEER REVIEW ENDORSED AT NEPAD'S 
FIFTH HEAD OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE (HSIC) MEETING 
NOVEMBER 3 IN ABUJA 
 
 
 ¶1.  (SBU) Summary. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo 
hosted a NEPAD Head of State Implementation Committee (HSIC) 
meeting November 3.  Nigeria's NEPAD coordinator, Ambassador 
Aluko-Olokun, briefed Abuja-resident G-8 diplomats November 
4, that the HSIC endorsed voluntary peer review as "critical" 
to NEPAD.  Aluko-Olokun characterized the African Union (AU) 
as the "mother and father of NEPAD," but claimed the AU 
currently lacks technical competence to perform peer review. 
Thus far, Ghana and Botswana have volunteered to undergo 
review.   A last minute attempt to attend the summit by 
Libya's Qadaffi was rejected because Northern Africa had not 
named Libya as its representative to the Implementation 
Committee.  End summary. 
 
 
¶2. (U) Seventeen nations attended the fifth meeting of the 
New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) Head of 
State Implementation Committee meeting on November 3 in 
Abuja.  Committee Chair President Obasanjo welcomed the group 
with a speech that underlined peace, security and stability 
as preconditions for development.  Obasanjo lauded positive 
developments in Sierra Leone, Angola, the Democratic Republic 
of the Congo, Sudan and even in Somalia, but noted continued 
instability elsewhere on the continent.  He urged all parties 
in Cote d'Ivoire to demonstrate commitment to peace and 
reconciliation, and called for an end to fighting in the 
Central African Republic and Liberia. 
 
 
¶3.  (U) In his speech, Obasanjo defined the African Peer 
Review Mechanism (APRM) as a voluntary assessment of mutually 
agreed codes and standards to foster good governance.  He 
stressed that for APRM to be effective, Africa's development 
partners must deliver on their commitments of material 
support. 
 
 
¶4.   (SBU) In briefing the G-8 diplomats, Aluko-Olokun 
characterized the meeting as productive and focusing on 
advancement of the NEPAD implementation process.  Noting that 
African countries have not implemented programs well in the 
past, Aluko-Olokun claimed President Obasanjo and the other 
leaders were determined to follow through on NEPAD.  The 
Committee set itself an April 2003 deadline to finalize the 
APRM mechanism. They also completed the process for naming 
the NEPAD Panel of Eminent Persons; accepted the APRM 
criteria and standards from the Chair's Report on NEPAD's 
June to October, 2002 activities;  and  approved priorities 
and strategies for the next three years period in line with 
the NEPAD Program of Action. 
 
 
¶5. (SBU) Twelve countries signed the Declaration of Intent on 
Implementation of the APRM, including South Africa.  Of the 
five countries that did not sign, Aluko-Olokun attributed 
Senegal's absence to the early departure of President Wade, 
Cameroon's to discrepancies between the French and English 
language versions of the document, and Tunisia, Uganda and 
Botswana to reasons unknown to him.  (Comment: Several days 
before the meeting, press reports had noted differences in 
opinion among NEPAD leaders in the peer review mechanism. 
South Africa's Mbeki had stated that NEPAD did not envision 
"political" review, only economic review. End Comment.) 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) According to Aluko-Olokun, APRM is voluntary now, 
but it will become obligatory once NEPAD is incorporated into 
the African Union.  Furthermore, APRM will become more 
attractive as international donor aid is increasingly 
directed to African countries through NEPAD.  The HSIC 
rejected the argument NEPAD was undercutting the 
effectiveness of AU political, economic, and human rights 
commissions, which Aluko-Olokun argued had become moribund. 
Furthermore, Aluko-Olokun said relations were too strained 
between the AU and international community to expect any 
effective leadership by the AU in the short term. 
 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Mbeki's comments about political peer review had 
helped force the committee to focus on the issue.  "Many 
countries had not understood the idea," announced 
Aluko-Olokun,  "and many were afraid of the idea. We talked 
about it extensively. It became evident that peer review 
without political review was not viable.  In principle and in 
fact, there can be no economic peer review without some kind 
of political review." 
 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Comment: Despite Aluko-Olokun's forward-leaning 
statements on peer review becoming obligatory, the deal may 
not yet be done.  Even within the GON, some influential 
players continue to insist that peer review will be 
voluntary.  The belief is that as more nations voluntarily 
submit and benefit from increased development assistance and 
private sector activity for good governance, the mechanism 
will obtain a certain gravity, attracting other countries to 
the fold.  Additionally, there are differing opinions of what 
peer review will look like.  Will it only be on specific 
areas designated by the country under review? Also, some 
believe the mechanism will produce a "report card" or a 
governance rating while others see the process as less formal 
and more consultative, one that does not issue pass or fail 
grades but provides suggestions and recommendations to the 
subject governments. 
 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Aluko-Olokun rejected press speculation that 
Cameroonian President Paul Biya's absence was the result of 
heightened tensions with Nigeria.  The International Court of 
Justice decision awarding sovereignty of the disputed Bakassi 
peninsula to Cameroon was not discussed at the November 3 
HSIC meeting.  Cameroon did send a full delegation of 30 to 
35 members and actively participated in the meetings, 
Aluko-Olokun said. 
 
 
¶10.  (SBU) Peer review dominated a large chunk of the HSIC 
discussions.  Apparently, some Governments were getting cold 
feet, worried that they may be creating something that will 
lead to their future discomfort and embarrassment. While the 
meeting was successful in reaching agreement on "political" 
peer review, the story as to what the review will actually 
entail is yet to be told.   End Comment. 
JETER