MFA PROTESTS EMBASSY COMMENTS IN THE PRESS

C O N F I D E N T I A L LUSAKA 000588


FOR AF/S AND DRL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/21/2019
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL ZA
SUBJECT: MFA PROTESTS EMBASSY COMMENTS IN THE PRESS

REF: LUSAKA 552

Classified By: Ambassador Donald E. Booth, reasons 1.4, b/d.


1. (C) MFA Permanent Secretary Tens Kapoma called in the
Ambassador August 14 to protest an Emboff's remarks reported
by the opposition "Post" newspaper on August 11 that were
critical of the GRZ's proposed NGO Bill. The Post accurately
quoted Emboff as saying we believe the NGO Bill is
unnecessary but inaccurately twisted Emboff's comments in a
way that implied the USG does not provide budget assistance
to the GRZ because the GRZ is untrustworthy. Kapoma asserted
that, as long as the NGO Bill was under consideration by
parliament, it is an "internal" matter and said it is
inconsistent with the Vienna Convention for foreign diplomats
to interfere in internal matters. He furthermore noted that
publicly criticizing the GRZ, especially on its home turf,
was inconsistent with Emboff's diplomatic status. Kapoma
noted several times that MFA, being responsible for the
safety of diplomats, would not want criticism or harm to come
to any foreign embassy in Lusaka and thus diplomats need to
avoid publicly criticizing government and arousing passions.
(Comment: While politely put, it was hard to see this as
anything other than a veiled threat.)


2. (C) Ambassador responded in return: 1) Emboff had been
speaking to a student group without knowledge journalists
were present; 2) remarks about funding were inaccurate; 3)
diplomats have a right to talk to the press; 4) the proposed
NGO Bill would have an impact on U.S. NGOs and on U.S.
interests and therefore it is not strictly an internal matter
and 5) the apparent growing pattern of GRZ efforts to curtail
free speech (citing the recent expulsion of the Amcit working
for a U.S. NGO for criticizing a Deputy Minister in her blog)
was disconcerting. Kapoma asserted that the GRZ fully
respects freedom of speech and echoed FM Pande's comparison
of Zambia's press freedom record to that of The Gambia
(reftel)! He also reminded Ambassador that Zambia's
democracy is only 45 years old and thus more fragile than
America's, another Pande argument. Kapoma said diplomats
were free to speak to the press as long as they are mindful
of to whom, when, how and on which subjects they speak.
Ambassador concluded saying the two sides would have to agree
to disagree on engagement with the press and that we would
continue to speak out where we believe it is in our interest
to do so.


3. (C) The extent to which Kapoma was just delivering the
mail on behalf of Pande is unclear, although the indirect
threats certainly lent a weightiness to the discussion.
Although some of Kapoma's arguments were almost verbatim from
Pande's reftel cultural relativism discussion two weeks
previously, the Ambassador has picked up the similar themes
from other ministers as well (septels). The cabinet is
clearly discussing these issues. We will continue to
advocate for freedom of speech and press in Zambia in order
to persuade the GRZ that nurturing Zambia's democracy
requires healthy debate, not smothering.


BOOTH