VZCZCXRO4463
RR RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHRN
DE RUEHMR #0049/01 0471314
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 161314Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY MASERU
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4593
INFO RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
RUEHMR/AMEMBASSY MASERU 5029

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MASERU 000049 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/S, INR/AF 
PRETORIA FOR ORA, DATT 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL:  2/4/2020 
TAGS: PGOV KMCA LT
SUBJECT: LAND REFORM ISSUE CONTINUES TO REVEAL FAULT LINES WITHIN 
LESOTHO GOVERNMENT 
 
REF: A.  09 Maseru 400   B. 09 Maseru 447 
 
MASERU 00000049  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Elizabeth C. Power, Deputy Chief of Mission. 
REASON: 1.4 (b), (d) 
¶1.  (C) Summary:  Minister of Local Government and Chieftainship 
Ponts'o Sekatle accused Ambassador Nolan of betraying her by 
engaging in a public diplomacy campaign around the land reform 
bill currently before parliament, although she later 
acknowledged that post was forced to take action to counter 
negative press against the Millennium Challenge Corporation 
(MCC) and the USG in general.  While the meeting began and ended 
on very cordial terms, Sekatle's aggressive attitude during the 
meeting and unwillingness to listen to any concerns about the 
land bill not only confirm her image as one of the GOL 
hardliners, but also underline the potential for political 
violence caused by the GOL's inflexible posture on political 
issues concerning the opposition.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (C) In a February 3 meeting with the Ambassador, Minister 
Sekatle expressed her sense of "betrayal" and shock at the 
Embassy's public diplomacy efforts around the contentious land 
reform bill that is currently before parliament (ref A). 
Sekatle stated that the public letter written by MCC explaining 
the USG role in the land bill debate was improper interference 
in Lesotho's domestic politics and an expression of a lack of 
confidence in her personal ability to get the bill passed as 
required by the terms of the MCC Compact.  Noting that the 
governing Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD) holds a majority 
in parliament, she said, "I told you I would drive this bill 
through parliament," and there had been no need for the Embassy 
to take any action related to land reform.  She spoke 
disparagingly of the opposition, characterizing them as scheming 
politicians who would tell us one thing but tell their 
constituents something else and implying that the USG had been 
duped by the opposition's positive responses to our public 
diplomacy efforts. 
 
¶3.  (C) The Ambassador thanked Sekatle for her candor and 
expressed regret for any offense taken, but laid out the logic 
behind the Embassy's public outreach campaign, which included 
meetings with opposition leaders, a press conference, and the 
public letter.  With the USG under public attack as having 
pushed land reform on the GOL in order to gain control of 
Lesotho's minerals and water, the Embassy had to take action to 
educate the politicians and the public about the history and 
goals of the land reform activity as defined in the Compact. 
Sekatle acknowledged that defense of our national image was an 
important factor that she had not considered, and she agreed 
with the Ambassador that more careful coordination around 
problem areas would help avoid similar misunderstandings in the 
future. 
 
¶4.  (C)  Comment:  Sekatle's combative attitude regarding the 
land bill, lack of public engagement on the issue of land 
reform, and disregard for the concerns of the opposition lend 
credence to her image as one of the cabinet's hardliners (ref 
B); on the other hand, moderate cabinet members such as Minister 
of Foreign Affairs Tsekoa and Minister of Communications Metsing 
told the Ambassador that they applauded the Embassy for engaging 
in effective public diplomacy by engaging the opposition on the 
land bill.  We believe that Sekatle's strategy had been to say 
that the USG had forced the land bill on Lesotho and the GOL had 
no choice but to accept it.  Her description of her plan to pass 
the bill as "driving it through parliament" indicates that the 
LCD has no apparent plans for outreach around the bill, either 
with the general public or with members of the LCD party, who 
thus far have not been engaged on the issue.  Given Lesotho's 
history of strict party discipline and an opposition whose role 
is to simply oppose the government's proposals, post expects 
that the LCD will dictate that its members of parliament support 
the bill without any further discussion.  Despite their private 
statements to MCC that the land bill may actually be good for 
the country, the various opposition parties are likely to oppose 
it even though the LCD's majority will ensure that the bill 
passes - if party discipline holds. 
 
¶5.  (C)  Comment continued:  Counting on the party discipline of 
their parliamentary majority appears to be the GOL's only 
strategy for passing the land bill, further confirming the 
unwillingness of the Prime Minister and hardline cabinet 
ministers to engage in any type of meaningful political 
discussion.  It is not clear how much internal explanation of 
the bill's components and history has been done for LCD members 
of parliament, who have not participated in any of post's public 
outreach activities thus far; it is likely that they have no 
further information than is available in the press.  This 
seeming lack of knowledge, when combined with an LCD power base 
that is centered in the rural areas of the country where land 
reform is particularly contentious and misunderstood, could be 
quite explosive.  The LCD is risking a revolt by its members of 
parliament - or a major aisle-crossing, if LCD members decide to 
join the opposition in rejecting land reform to appease their 
 
MASERU 00000049  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
rural constituents.  In either of these scenarios, a 
destabilization of Lesotho's fragile political situation is 
possible.  The potential for political violence is always 
present under the surface here; post will continue to monitor 
and report on any developments.  End comment. 
NOLAN