Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
03KATHMANDU1381
2003-07-23 10:28:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Kathmandu
Cable title:  

NEPAL: BHUTANESE REFUGEE ISSUE RECEIVES

Tags:  PREF EAID BH NP 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 001381 

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM: RMACKLER
DEPT PASS TO USAID/ANE
LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY, NSC FOR MILLARD

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/23/2013
TAGS: PREF EAID BH NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: BHUTANESE REFUGEE ISSUE RECEIVES
DRAMATICALLY INCREASED ATTENTION

REF: (A) KATHMANDU 1301 (B) KATHMANDU 1237

Classified By: DCM Robert Boggs for reasons 1.5 (b,d).

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 001381

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM: RMACKLER
DEPT PASS TO USAID/ANE
LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY, NSC FOR MILLARD

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/23/2013
TAGS: PREF EAID BH NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: BHUTANESE REFUGEE ISSUE RECEIVES
DRAMATICALLY INCREASED ATTENTION

REF: (A) KATHMANDU 1301 (B) KATHMANDU 1237

Classified By: DCM Robert Boggs for reasons 1.5 (b,d).


1. (C) Summary. Ambassador Malinowski's letter to the
editor, published prominently in several Nepali newspapers on
July 10, opened the floodgates to a spate of comments and
editorials from others in the international community, the
Bhutanese National Assembly and the Government of Nepal (GON)
regarding the fate of the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. The
EU, UNHCR, and Human Rights Watch have issued statements in
support of the U.S. position. Nepal's Foreign Ministry
spokesperson denied that refugees would seek to stay in Nepal
while the Bhutanese National Assembly reportedly condemned
the decision by the Governments of Nepal and Bhutan to allow
any refugees to return to Bhutan. Some have suggested that
the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB),by categorizing the
majority of refugees as either non-Bhutanese or Bhutanese who
must reapply for citizenship, have sent a message to the
refugees that they are not welcome in Bhutan. One thing is
clear, the refugees may get caught between two governments,
neither of which is willing to accept responsibility for
their welfare. Already there are indications that the
frustration of the refugees is attracting the attention of
political extremists, including Maoists. End Summary.


2. (U) On July 9, Ambassador Malinowski sent a letter to the
editors of several local publications expressing concern
about weaknesses and inconsistencies in the Nepal-Bhutan
Joint Verification Team's categorization of the 12,000
refugees residing in Khundunabari Camp in Eastern Nepal (Ref
A). The letter also called for international oversight of
repatriation and resettlement, questioned the integrity of
the appeals process, and underscored UNHCR's unique mandate
to undertake this kind of mission. The letter was
well-received in the press, enjoying front page coverage in
three national daily newspapers. UNHCR and Human Rights
Watch both publicly supported the U.S. position on the issue.



3. (U) Subsequent to the letter's publication, a spate of
commentaries and editorials have been published in Nepal's

English-language dailies. On July 18, the EU issued a press
release expressing concern over the JVT's findings and the
appellate procedures and calling for transparency in the
repatriation process.


4. (C) On July 19, Nepal's Foreign Ministry spokesperson,
Joint Secretary Madan Kumar Bhattarai, was reported in the
media as saying that the GON was confident that none of the
Category II refugees (Bhutanese who allegedly had departed
Bhutan voluntarily) would apply for Nepali citizenship.
(Note. Category II comprises 70.5 percent of Khundunabari
Camp residents. End note.) Bhattarai was quoted as saying
that "even if they (the refugees) apply for citizenship, they
will not meet the terms and conditions of Nepali
citizenship." According to UNHCR Director Abraham Abraham,
the GON has not agreed to discuss a local resettlement
program for the refugees. (Comment. The GON position could
be a calculated attempt to discourage refugees in large
numbers from deciding to stay in Nepal under the assumption
that they will be able to integrate easily with the local
population. End Comment.)


5. (U) Also on July 19, the Druk National Assembly in Bhutan
reportedly attacked the JVT's decision to allow any refugees
to resettle in Bhutan, stating that the team had "paved the
way for the return of anti-nationals (Ngolops) into the
country." Members of Bhutan's Parliament also reportedly
stated that "taking people from the camps in Nepal will only
aggravate the problems in the country."


6. (U) On July 22, two locally published editorials stressed
the importance of including the international community in
resolving the Bhutanese refugee problem. One specifically
suggested that the Government of India should be brought in
to facilitate the return of the refugees to Bhutan. On July
23, an editorial written by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan, a former
director of the Government of India's Research and Analysis
Wing (RAW),cited the need for international organizations to
play an active role in the repatriation of the Bhutanese
refugees. He suggested that the Government of Bhutan is
looking to "create as many difficulties as possible so that
these people remain in Nepal." Also on July 23, a
self-styled Bhutanese "liberation organization" reportedly
issued a statement asking the RGOB to revoke the criminal
charges against refugees charged with political crimes and
appealing to the international community to exert pressure on
the RGOB.


7. (C) In a private conversation on July 22, UNHCR Director
Abraham Abraham expressed concern that the RGOB intends to
repatriate only Category I refugees (293 people) from the
total Khundunabari camp population of 12,000. Moreover, he
fears that the RGOB intentionally categorized the majority of
residents in Category II as a means to discourage most of the
100,000 refugees in seven camps from repatriating to Bhutan.
Already 94 percent of the 12,000 Khundunabari Camp residents
have taken issue with the categorization by filing an appeal
to the JVT. If Category II residents opt not to return to
Bhutan, the RGOB may wash its hands of the affair, claiming
that it could do nothing more than provide the refugees with
an opportunity to return. Abraham said that the 15th Joint
Ministerial taking place in Thimpu on August 11-15 will
reveal whether the two sides are planning for a major
movement of people or only a small group of refugees.


8. (C) Comment. Greatly increased media coverage and
editorial interest in the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal has
politicized and internationalized the issue. Many
commentators have argued that the RGOB does not intend to
repatriate significant numbers of refugees, while the GON has
stated that the refugees would not likely receive Nepali
citizenship in the event that they decide to settle locally.
What this is likely to mean for the refugees is that their
status will deteriorate, at least in the eyes of the two
governments, from that of refugees to that of stateless
persons. Also, the mood in the camps is likely to turn from
one of long-suffering aspiration to one of frustration and
anger as the hopes raised by the JVT's categorization and
verification are dashed. In particular, the large number of
idle young people in the camps may become targets for
recruitment into the Maoist organization or into militant
anti-monarchical organizations of Nepalese Bhutanese. There
are signs already that the Maoists are infiltrating the camps
through their student wing ANNISU-R (Ref B). The uncertainty
surrounding the Bhutanese refugees has made one thing clear:
the need to find a solution to the refugee problem is more
urgent than ever before. End Comment.
MALINOWSKI