NEPAL: HOPELESSNESS REIGNS IN BHUTANESE REFUGEE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 KATHMANDU 002150

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/INS AND PRM:JLEADER AND MPITOTTI, LONDON FOR
POL/GURNEY, NSC FOR MILLARD

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/03/2013
TAGS: PREF PREL PTER BH NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: HOPELESSNESS REIGNS IN BHUTANESE REFUGEE
CAMPS

REF: (A) KATHMANDU 2075 (B) KATHMANDU 1849

Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Robert K. Boggs for Reasons 1.5 (b,d).


1. (C) Summary. During a visit to the Bhutanese refugee
camps in Eastern Nepal on October 29-30, PolOff met with
UNHCR field officers, refugee community leaders, and the
Khudunabari Camp Management Committee. Following the 15th
Joint Ministerial in Thimpu (Ref A),the general mood among
the refugees was one of despondency and anxiety. They have
been left with many unanswered questions, such as where they
will live and whether they will be granted citizenship.
Under current conditions, it appears that only a handful of
Category I and II refugees will decide to return. John
Andrew, the UNHCR field office director, was worried about
security in the camps since Nepalese security forces were
pulled out in September following a Maoist attack on the
Khudunabari Camp police post (Ref B). Andrew believes
Maoists have forced refugees to act as porters and to provide
food and shelter. Maoist flags have recently appeared in and
around several of the camps, including Khudunabari. The
refugees urged the U.S. Government to remain involved in the
refugee problem. End Summary.

--------------
Background
--------------


2. (U) PolOff visited the UNHCR field office and Bhutanese
refugees at Khudunabari Camp in Jhapa District on October
29-30. She met with John Andrew, the UNHCR field office
director, the WFP local coordinator, the Khudunabari Camp
Management Committee and other residents of the camp.
Sanitation, education and food facilities at Khudunabari were
well-run and in good working order. The camp was clean and
the refugees took obvious care to make their personal spaces
livable. However, living quarters were cramped with only
three small rooms (roughly 7 x 7 feet each) for up to eight
family members and only several feet between houses.
Although refugee-managed activities, such as food
distribution, a children's play center and a bakery, keep
some refugees occupied, out of the 12,000 refugees at the
camp, perhaps only 400 are actively involved in these small
programs.

-------------- --------------
Refugees Worried About Conditions of Repatriation
-------------- --------------


3. (SBU) The refugees' most critical concern regarding
repatriation to Bhutan is the return of their former property
holdings. According to the refugees, citizenship and land
ownership in Bhutan are closely linked. (Note. In Bhutan's
1958 Nationality Law, to become a Bhutanese National, a
"foreigner" must own "agricultural land" and have lived in
Bhutan for 10 years. End Note.) Many refugees have land
registration certificates, although in many cases, the
refugees claim that the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) has
issued new registration certificates in an effort to transfer
title of land previously owned by the refugees to
non-Nepalese ethnics. Additionally, some community leaders
reported rumors that the RGOB plans to resettle the refugees
in remote northern areas of the country where land is not
arable. "We are farmers and would not know what to do in the
cold mountains," one said. Others worried more about
placement in temporary camps without a UNHCR presence.


4. (SBU) The second most-cited concern focused on rules
governing the re-application for citizenship of Category II
refugees (i.e., those who allegedly emigrated voluntarily).
Most were concerned that after the two-year probationary
period, their applications would be denied and they would be
left with no support either from the RGOB or the
international community. The refugees continued to reject
the verification results and looked to the Joint Verification
Team's review of Category III (i.e., non-Bhutanese) appeals
with little hope for a positive outcome. The Deputy
Secretary of Khudunabari Camp, a woman with a husband and

SIPDIS
three children, showed PolOff her National Identification
Card issued by the RGOB in the 1980s. Despite this evidence
of her Bhutanese citizenship, the JVT had categorized her as
non-Bhutanese. Many refugees had similar claims.


5. (SBU) Other concerns expressed by the refugees included
employment and education opportunities. Many of the refugees
are highly-qualified professionals, such as accountants,
teachers and health workers. However, they have heard rumors
that the RGOB intends to use them for manual labor in
industries that suffer from labor shortages, such as the
growing hydropower sector. The refugees are worried that
they will not be free to pursue other employment
opportunities. Many refugees that are parents of middle- and
high-school age children also fear that their sons and
daughters will have to wait long periods before enrolling in
schools.


6. (SBU) Khudunabari Camp residents were greatly disappointed
that the Government of Nepal (GON) and RGOB failed to agree
on third-party involvement in the verification and/or
repatriation process. They were also disheartened by the
apparent decision to review only the appeals of Category III
residents, leaving the vast majority of refugees in Category
II with no guarantees on their future status in Bhutan.
Despite their fears, however, the majority of refugees want
to return to Bhutan.


7. (SBU) Overall, the refugees seemed distrustful of the
RGOB's intentions regarding repatriation. Despite the RGOB's
claims to the contrary, they believe it does not, in the end,
intend to grant citizenship to Category II refugees. They
fear that the RGOB will force them out of Bhutan at a later
date with the expectation that the international community
will not step back in to aid the former refugees. UNHCR
officials in Nepal agree that this could happen and that
under such a scenario, the GON likely would not allow the
refugees back into Nepal. Refugee community leaders believe
that the RGOB blames UNHCR for creating the refugee problem
because, at the time of their expulsion from Bhutan, the RGOB
had hoped the refugees would merely assimilate into Nepal as
those from Burma did many years before. (FYI: Although India
would have been the country of first refuge, the Indian
Government was complicit in the explusion from Bhutan by
trucking the refugees to Nepal. End FYI.)

--------------
Increased Concerns over Security
--------------


8. (C) John Andrew, the UNHCR field office director, confided
his concerns over security in and around the camps.
According to Andrew, the law-and-order situation in the camps
has deteriorated in recent weeks, following the withdrawal of
police personnel from the camps. The Deputy Inspector
General of Police in Jhapa District has failed to follow
through with his promise to provide regular mobile patrols in
and around the camps, he said. Andrew mentioned that the
National Police and Armed Police have asked UNHCR for fuel
and vehicle support in order to conduct additional patrols.
UNHCR is not able to provide that assistance, he said.

9. (C) As a result, petty thievery and other forms of minor
crime have increased lately. More significantly perhaps,
Andrew believes that Maoists are using the lax environment to
base nighttime operations out of the camps. He suspects that
the Maoists have forced refugees to carry supplies, as well
as to provide them with food and shelter. However, the
refugees have not filed formal complaints to UNHCR or the
police for fear of Maoist reprisal, he said. Andrew also
reported that Maoist flags are visible around several of the
camps. PolOff saw one large Maoist flag hanging
conspicuously outside a small business near the entrance to
Khudunabari Camp.

--------------
Refugees Seek Continued U.S. Support
--------------


10. (C) Although the vast majority of the refugees want to
return to their homeland and not remain in Nepal, refugee
community leaders predict that few Khudunabari Camp residents
will choose to return under current conditions. All of the
refugees were aware that obtaining Nepali citizenship would
be even less likely than Bhutanese citizenship. This dilemma
is foremost in the minds of all Khudunabari Camp residents
and few answers are being offered to them. The Camp
Management Committee asked the U.S. Government to remain
actively involved on the issue in coming months. With the
belief that only Bhutan's monarch can resolve the current
impasse, they urged the USG to convey their concerns to the
King of Bhutan.


11. (C) Andrew commented that UNHCR is planning to conduct an
assessment in all seven camps to identify vulnerable groups
that might require resettlement in third countries. Andrew
said that UNHCR has been responding to many inquiries by the
refugees regarding third-country resettlement options. To
date, however, UNHCR has replied that no such options are
available.

--------------
Comment
--------------


12. (C) The sense of despair in Khudunabari Camp was
palpable. With no hope that their appeals will be
successful, the refugees were anxious about their future and
conflicted about what to do now. UNHCR Lubbers' speech at
UNGA left them with the impression that the U.N., which has
acted as their primary advocate over the past decade, is now
planning to withdraw that support. Likewise, the refugees
have been given little reason to trust the Bhutanese
Government. They believe the RGOB has sent significant
nonverbal messages to discourage them from repatriating, such
as continued seizure and resettlement of their land and the
appointment to the JVT of officials who had been active in
their expulsion in 1989-1990. The refugees also know that,
with millions of immigrants from India to the Terai eager to
obtain Nepali citizenship, the GON is unlikely to relax its
legal requirements, making local resettlement an unattractive
option.


13. (C) Comment Continued: Despite the refugees' lack of
trust in the RGOB, most desire to return to Bhutan. However,
conditions of return, especially for Category II refugees,
need to be made explicit. Will the refugees be returned to
their properties or home areas? Exactly which provisions of
Bhutan's Citizenship Law will apply to Category II
applicants? Will the refugees be permitted to seek and
obtain employment according to their qualifications? Will
their children be able to transfer without delay into schools
in Bhutan? Will instruction in these schools be in Nepali or
the majority Dzonkha language? Post believes these questions
are valid and that the RGOB should be encouraged to address
them formally in detail and in public. End Comment.
BOGGS