Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
03KATHMANDU2432
2003-12-15 05:45:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Kathmandu
Cable title:  

BHUTANESE REFUGEES: FRIENDS OF BHUTAN VISIT TO

Tags:  PREF PREL PHUM 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 03 KATHMANDU 002432 

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM/ANE; LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY; NSC FOR
MILLARD; GENEVA FOR PLYNCH

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/05/2013
TAGS: PREF PREL PHUM BH NP
SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEES: FRIENDS OF BHUTAN VISIT TO
THIMPU YIELDS FEW RESULTS

REF: KATHMANDU 2385

Classified By: Ambassador Michael E. Malinowski for reasons 1.5 (b,d).

-------
SUMMARY
-------

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KATHMANDU 002432

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM/ANE; LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY; NSC FOR
MILLARD; GENEVA FOR PLYNCH

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/05/2013
TAGS: PREF PREL PHUM BH NP
SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEES: FRIENDS OF BHUTAN VISIT TO
THIMPU YIELDS FEW RESULTS

REF: KATHMANDU 2385

Classified By: Ambassador Michael E. Malinowski for reasons 1.5 (b,d).

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (C) During a recent visit to Kathmandu, the Swiss and
Austrian Ambassadors resident in New Delhi reported on their
visit December 1-3 to Thimpu. The five-nation Friends of
Bhutan demarched the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB),
urging it to increase transparency in the repatriation
process, to complete verification of the remaining camps as
quickly as possible, and to allow for third-party monitoring.
The RGOB agreed that verification should be completed
quickly and asserted that the Bhutanese Verification Team now
in Khudunabari Camp will provide information to the refugees
about repatriation. The RGOB did not agree to third-party
monitoring, however. The Swiss and Austrian Ambassadors
criticized UNHCR for withdrawing financial support for the
Nepali Verification Team, suggesting that UNHCR was
increasing the refugees' anxiety over repatriation. The
Austrian Ambassador suggested that the donor community must
trust the RGOB to respect the human rights of the refugees.
U.K. and EU representatives at the meeting questioned the
RGOB's sincerity and noted a disconnect between its words and
actions. The "Friends" visit to Thimpu appears to have
yielded few concrete results. End Summary.

-------------- ---
FRIENDS OF BHUTAN DEMARCHE GOVERNMENT IN THIMPU
-------------- ---


2. (SBU) On December 4, UNHCR Regional Director Jean-Marie
Fakhouri briefed donors on his impressions from his visit to
Nepal and on the direction UNHCR likely will move on the
Bhutanese refugee question. The content of Fakhouri's
briefing was provided Reftel. This cable is primarily meant
to report on the December 1-3 visit to Thimpu of the "Friends
of Bhutan." Both Ambassador Walter Gyger of Switzerland and
Ambassador Jutta Stefan-Bastl of Austria attended Fakhouri's
briefing and provided a read-out of their visit. (Note.
These two Ambassadors are based in New Delhi but responsible
for both Nepal and Bhutan. End Note.)



3. (C) Gyger prefaced his remarks with the suggestion that
the diplomatic missions in New Delhi and Kathmandu meet more
often to discuss issues, particularly regarding the Bhutanese
refugees. He confirmed that both he and Ambassador
Stefan-Bastl, along with a representative from Denmark, had
just returned from a visit to Thimpu. He noted that the
governments of Norway and the Netherlands had given the
delegation authority to speak on their behalf. Gyger said
that the Friends' demarche to the RGOB focused on four
points, although he only elaborated three of those points.


4. (C) First, the Friends urged the Royal Government of
Bhutan (RGOB) to increase transparency in the repatriation
process. Gyger said that the refugees' anxieties over
repatriation are understandable. The RGOB gave assurances to
the Friends that the Bhutanese Verification Team now in
Khudunabari Camp is there not only to review Category III
appeals, but also to inform the refugees of the conditions
awaiting them inside Bhutan. The RGOB also confirmed that
repatriation forms will be distributed to Khudunabari Camp
refugees after Category III appeals have been reviewed.
(FYI: The review should be complete sometime in late
January/early February. End FYI)


5. (C) Second, the Friends urged the RGOB to complete
verification of all camps as quickly as possible. Gyger
agreed with Fakhouri that the refugees have been confined to
the camps for far too long and this situation must be
resolved soon. According to Gyger, the RGOB concurred.

6. (C) The third, and most sensitive point raised by the
Friends, was the issue of third-party monitoring. Gyger left
Thimpu with the impression that the door to third-party
oversight is now "a little open." He said that instead of
rejecting the suggestion outright, the RGOB said it "does not
see a need (for third-party monitoring) now" but agreed to
continue discussions on the issue. According to Gyger, the
Friends conveyed to the RGOB that they did not wish to
pressure the government, "only to help and support movement
forward." Gyger asserted that the donors must accept that
UNHCR is "not welcome" in Bhutan and recognize the progress
made by the RGOB in allowing over 70 percent of the refugees
to return. Gyger then criticized UNHCR for withdrawing
financial support from the Nepali Verification Team. UNHCR
should avoid increasing the anxiety of the refugees over
whether to return to Bhutan, he added.


7. (C) Austrian Ambassador Stefan-Bastl then commented that
the Friends of Bhutan had agreed that verification and
repatriation would be a bilateral process because "they felt
that there was no other way to move forward." She said that
she has visited Thimpu three times in the past year and has
witnessed a shift in the King's position vis-a-vis the
refugees. Stefan-Bastl expected UNHCR to be helpful, not
critical, of the process. She said they had no choice but to
trust the RGOB to respect the refugees' human rights. She
also suggested there might be another possibility for
third-party monitoring, but would not elaborate. (Note:
UNHCR External Affairs Director for Asia Milton Moreno
afterwards told PolOff that he suspected the Austrian
Ambassador was suggesting a possible role for the
International Organization for Migration (IOM). However,
Moreno believed IOM was not a good candidate because of
recent problems associated with IOM turning back
asylum-seekers in Australia. End Note.)

-------------- --
EU AND UK REPRESENTATIVES REACT WITH SKEPTICISM
-------------- --


8. (C) Gyger's remarks sparked immediate comment from both
the U.K. and EU representatives at the meeting. The U.K.
representative noted that the RGOB has not ratified any
international human rights conventions and has failed to
allow for third-party monitoring of the refugees. He
highlighted the absence of any commitment in writing and
strongly questioned the sincerity of the RGOB's verbal
assurances. Like Fakhouri, the U.K. representative also
questioned whether the current bilateral process will provide
a durable solution to the refugees.


9. (C) Similarly, the EU Commission representative, who has
visited Thimpu six times, opined that the RGOB is "very
clever" and, through its red-carpet treatment, has always
been very successful at convincing visitors of its good
intentions while at the same time providing little
follow-through in action. He mentioned that he has worked on
the refugee issue off and on for over six years and the RGOB
has always kept the door "a little bit open," without ever
opening it all the way. He questioned the RGOB's sincerity
in providing a durable and positive solution to the refugee
issue. The EU representative asked the Swiss Ambassador
whether the RGOB had agreed to return the refugees to their
home areas -- an issue of significant concern to the refugees
-- and Gyger replied no. Gyger added, however, that the RGOB
has agreed to provide the refugees with jobs, free access to
education and health services and temporary residency cards.

--------------
COMMENT
--------------

10. (C) The Friends' visit to Thimpu appears to have yielded
few results. From the Ambassadors' comments, it also appears
that the Friends have conceded an important point to the RGOB
-- namely that the repatriation of the refugees is not an
international, but bilateral process. From their accounts,
it does not appear that Bhutan's donors are willing to exert
pressure on -- or use their leverage with -- the RGOB on
accepting a third-party monitor and providing guarantees for
the refugees. According to Jean-Marie Fakhouri, this is the
first time UNHCR has not been an active player in the
verification and repatriation of a refugee population. The
implications of this for future UNHCR interventions around
the world could be significant.


11. (C) Comment Continued: The critical question now is
whether the current bilateral process will provide a just and
durable solution for the Bhutanese refugees. The RGOB has
shown no willingness at this point to permit third-party
monitoring, to return the refugees to their homes, or to
guarantee citizenship to the majority of refugees. By
claiming that the majority of refugees left Bhutan
voluntarily, the RGOB has effectively stripped them of their
refugee status and created the risk of their becoming
stateless persons after the camps are closed. Although the
RGOB has agreed verbally to provide returnees with jobs and
access to social services, it has committed to nothing in
writing. Nor has the RGOB said whether the returnees will be
free to choose a job commensurate with their education or
whether they will be required to work as manual laborers in,
for example, construction or hydropower plants. According to
our Bhutanese interlocutors, the RGOB continues to
discriminate against ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan (reported
septel). It will be very important to discover whether the
Bhutanese members of the JVT clarify these questions for the
refugees. Unless there are firm indications that officially
sanctioned ethnic discrimination will not be applied to the
repatriates, we may need to consider whether the USG can
support the current bilateral process without third-party
oversight. End Comment.
MALINOWSKI