NEPAL: PLANS FOR BHUTANESE REFUGEE REPATRIATION

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 001432

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/INS, SA/RA
LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY, NSC FOR MILLARD

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/31/2013
TAGS: PREL PREF PHUM NP BT
SUBJECT: NEPAL: PLANS FOR BHUTANESE REFUGEE REPATRIATION
STILL UNCLEAR

REF: SECSTATE 215687

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


1. (C) Summary. DCM met with Madan Kumar Bhattarai, MFA
Acting Secretary and Joint Secretary for South Asia, on July
31 to discuss progress toward a durable solution for the
Bhutanese refugee problem in Eastern Nepal as instructed
reftel. Bhattarai admitted that the Government of Nepal and
Royal Government of Bhutan did not see eye-to-eye on the
issue of third party involvement and that the GON looked
favorably upon UNHCR participation. He did not believe many
Khundunabari Camp refugees would successfully appeal their
categorization, indicating that only 10-12 appeal cases were
being seriously considered by the Bhutanese Joint
Verification Team members. Bhattarai claimed that both
Category I and II refugees would begin repatriation on
September 25. However, the GON has not yet begun internal
discussions on a local resettlement program, he said.
Moreover, Bhattarai did not know whether the RGOB had begun
making logistical arrangements for the September
repatriation. Post continues to be deeply concerned that
neither the RGOB or GON is truly committed to reintegrating
the refugees into their local communities. End Summary.


2. (C) On July 31, DCM Robert Boggs, accompanied by PolOff,
met with Madan Kumar Bhattarai, MFA Acting Secretary and
Joint Secretary for South Asia, to discuss reftel points.
The DCM opened the meeting by expressing concern that the
practical issues involving the transportation and
repatriation of refugees to Bhutan have not been adequately
addressed by the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB). If the
RGOB is not committed to upholding international standards
for refugee resettlement, then the USG fears that refugees
will choose not to return to Bhutan and instead seek
resettlement in Nepal and elsewhere. Involvement of the
UNHCR or other international NGOs in the verification and
resettlement process would help to alleviate the refugees'
uncertainties, he said. The DCM also highlighted USG
concerns that the dashed aspirations of those refugees who
are not guaranteed Bhutanese citizenship will create a
fertile breeding ground within the camps for extremist groups
from either Bhutan or Nepal.


3. (C) Bhattarai admitted that the GON and RGOB did not see
eye-to-eye regarding international involvement in the
verification and repatriation process. The GON recognizes
that the objective of the international community is to have
a positive impact on the issue, he said, and as such looks
favorably upon UNHCR involvement. Bhattarai claimed that the
GON also had attempted to impress on the Government of India
the need for international assistance, but without success.
He mentioned that Indian National Security Advisor Brajesh
Mishra would be departing soon for another visit to Thimpu to
discuss border security issues. He implied that he did not
expect refugee repatriation to be on Mishra's agenda.


4. (C) The DCM inquired into the results of the Nepal-Bhutan
Joint Verification Team's (JVT) review of the appeals
submitted by 94 percent of Khundunabari Camp residents.
Bhattarai replied that although July 31 was the last day for
review of appeals, recommendations would not negotiated
bilaterallyl until the 15th Joint Ministerial, scheduled to
take place in Thimpu during August 11-15. He confided that
the Bhutanese JVT members were giving serious consideration
to only 10-12 cases. The Nepali side, however, has reviewed
far more cases than the Bhutanese, Bhattarai said, although
he did not specify how many. Bhattarai stated that because
the Bhutanese and Nepali JVT teams did not agree on which
appeals merited a review, the two sides would likely submit
differing recommendations to the August Ministerial.


5. (C) Bhattarai refuted fears by some in the international
community that the RGOB plans to accept only Category I
refugees (Bhutanese citizens). "Both Category I and II will
go," he said. When asked about GON preparations to resettle
in Nepal those refugees who choose not to repatriate to
Bhutan, Bhattarai said that his government had not begun
internal discussions on this issue.


6. (C) The DCM then asked whether the GON was aware if any
logistical arrangements had been made to prepare for the
September 25 departure of the refugees from Khundunabari
Camp. Bhattarai replied that the GON was not aware of any
arrangements the RGOB might have made to receive the
returning refugees, but that the GON expects the RGOB to
report on its activities in this area at the August
Ministerial.


7. (C) Comment. Post is concerned over the continuing lack
of information on the RGOB's logistical arrangements for the
repatriation of Khundunabari Camp refugees to Bhutan. These
arrangments are supposed to be finalized at the August
Ministerial, which begins in less than two weeks. The issue
of granting some of the refugees Nepali citizenship is a
political hot potato. Thousands of people of Indian
extraction living in the Terai for generations are still
without Nepali citizenship. Although the GON might be
willing to allow some refugees to resettle locally, Post
doubts the GON will seriously consider granting citizenship,
leaving the refugees as stateless persons. Post will again
raise this issue with MFA Secretary Acharya upon his return
to Kathmandu. End Comment.
MALINOWSKI