BHUTANESE REFUGEES: GON HOLDS DONOR'S MEETING,

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 000287 SIPDIS DEPT FOR SA/INS LONDON FOR POL/ERIEDEL E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/14/2008 TAGS: PREF PREL EAID NP SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEES: GON HOLDS DONOR'S MEETING, OFFERING INSIGHT INTO GON/GOB AGREEMENT REF: A. A. KATHMANDU 228 ¶B. B. KATHMANDU 170 ¶C. C. STATE 16356 Classified By: Ambassador Michael E. Malinowski for reasons 1.5 (d). Summary ======= ¶1. (SBU) On February 13, Nepal's Secretary of Foreign Affairs briefed international donors on the agreement reached between Nepal and Bhutan on verification of Bhutanese refugees. The Government of Nepal (GoN) and participating donors were openly skeptical of the agreement, pointing out the lack of technical detail and a timeline. Nepal has asked for continued pressure on Bhutan to make good on its commitments. End summary. The Minstry of Foreign Affairs Holds Donor Meeting ============================================= ===== ¶2. (U) On Febraury 13, Nepal's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Madhu Raman Acharya, briefed donors on the agreement between the Government of Bhutan (GoB) and GoN reached last week. Also present and participating was outgoing Joint Secretary for South Asia Gyan Chandra Acharya. Representatives from the European Union, European donors, Australia, Japan, and the U.S. were present, with India notably absent. Secretary Acharya confirmed that the GoN and GoB had harmonized positions on the four categories of refugees (Ref A). The GoN provided some valuable additional detail on the agreement, including GoN's opinion of the result. The Agreement ============= ¶3. (C) Secretary Acharya hailed the GoN/GoB agreement as a breakthrough. He emphasized the fact the agreement was put into writing and signed by government representatives. When questioned, the Secretary declined to share a copy of the agreement unless the GoB assented or there is a breach of its terms. (Comment: Subsequently, the DCM learned from the German Ambassador that the Secretary would be willing to provide a copy in private. End comment.) During the GoB/GoN ministerial-level discussions, the parties established guidelines on documentation and established assurances that families would not be separated during the categorization process. However, when donors pressed for details, Acharya could provide very little substance. ¶4. (C) After the Secretary's brief statement, donors questioned the need for four categories, in light of the GoB's commitment to accept all those willing to return who were Bhutanese. Joint Secretary Acharya replied that in accepting Bhutan's four categories, the GoN provided Bhutan with a face-saving measure--allowing the GoB to place more refugees into the voluntary category rather than the forcefully expatriated category. Donors confirmed that the agreement did not address the restitution of property or compensation to repatriated refugees. When the GoN was confronted with the real possibility that this might affect refugees' willingness to return, the Secretary stated that the position of the GoN will depend on the numbers of Bhutanese unwilling to return. Timeline ======== ¶5. (SBU) No timeline for repatriation was established in the agreement, although Secretary Acharya hopes that refugees will begin to leave the camps by the second half of this year. The parties agreed to deploy the Joint Verification Team (JVT) to Bhutan on Febraury 24 to review the verification documents of the Khundunabari Camp. Secretary Acharya anticipates 3-4 weeks for the team to complete categorization based on the documents. He confirmed that an additional ministerial meeting will be held in Thimpu on March 24 to address any issues and move forward on repatriating the first camp. The Secretary sees no reason why additional camps could not be verified during initial repatriation, although this point was not part of the agreement. GoN and Donor Skepticism ======================== ¶6. (C) The Secretary and Joint Secretary demonstrated obvious skepticism on the prospects for Bhutanese repatriation. Secretary Acharya bordered on the undiplomatic in stating, "An agreement with Bhutan that is not in writing is not an agreement." He also expects frustration on all sides with likely delays in implementation. Participating donors echoed the GoN's doubt. The Secretary echoed the Foreign Minister's comment that the GoN will measure Bhutanese sincerity by the results of the Joint Verification Team--how many does Bhutan ultimately take back (Ref B). Acharya requested the international community to continue to encourage (rephrased to "pressure" in private) Bhutan to turn deeds into actions. Comment ======= ¶7. (C) The agreement, while a notable step, lacks sufficient detail to provide complete assurance of Bhutan's intentions. Donors' questions were met with ambiguous replies by the Secretary, who placed much emphasis on the March 24 SIPDIS ministerial to resolve any remaining problems. The efforts of the international community to encourage Bhutan to follow through could well be critical to the ultimate resettlement of the over 100,000 refugees. The upcoming conference in Geneva would provide an exceptional opportunity for donors to pin the GoB down on specific timelines, conditions, and compensation (Ref C). MALINOWSKI