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