NEPAL/INDIA EXTRADITION TREATY NEGOTIATIONS FALTER

C O N F I D E N T I A L KATHMANDU 000330 SIPDIS STATE FOR SA/INS LONDON FOR POL - RIEDEL E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/24/2013 TAGS: PREL NP IN SUBJECT: NEPAL/INDIA EXTRADITION TREATY NEGOTIATIONS FALTER OVER TREATMENT OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS Classified By: DCM ROBERT K. BOGGS. REASON: 1.5 (B,D). ¶1. (SBU) Extradition treaty negotiations between the Government of India (GOI) and the Government of Nepal (GON) ended inconclusively after five days on February 20. This initial meeting, held in Kathmandu at the working level, was aimed at updating and revising the existing extradition treaty between the two countries. Simultaneous talks on concluding a bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty ended on the same day. The next round of talks on both treaties is not expected before April or May. ¶2. (C) Dr. Madan Kumar Bhattarai, Joint Secretary for South Asia at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and leader of the GON negotiating team, cited GOI insistence on a new provision for the extradition of third country nationals as the most significant point of contention between the two countries. Committing explicitly to the extradition of third country nationals is politically problematic for Nepal, Bhattarai told the DCM. The draft treaty the GON submitted for Indian consideration is "silent" on the question, Bhattarai said. By not specifically prohibiting the extradition of third country nationals, the GON draft "by implication covers" it, in his view. The difference in the respective bilateral perspectives on this matter is not insurmountable, he believes, adding that he expects that a mutually acceptable compromise can be reached in due time. ¶3. (C) Executing a mutual legal assistance agreement will be more difficult, Bhattarai asserted, because the areas of disagreement are more numerous. (Note: Negotiations on the proposed mutual legal assistance agreement were conducted by Bhattarai's counterpart in the Home Ministry. End note.) For example, the Indians insisted on reciprocal visits by the respective police forces to investigate crimes. Under current conditions, Bhattarai said, such visits are frequent but take place informally. Formal permission for Indian authorities to conduct their own investigations on Nepal's sovereign territory would be "politically sensitive," Bhattarai said. The GOI has also asked for the exchange of judicial and criminal records, a request that the GON team must first vet with Nepal's Supreme Court. Although the two countries are closer to agreeing (at least, in Bhattarai's estimation) on a draft extradition treaty, the GON does not wish to move ahead on one agreement without concomitant progress on the other. In short, the GON sees "no point in hurrying" to conclude the treaties. ¶4. (C) Comment: In practice, both the GOI and GON often quietly turn over each other's nationals without engaging in formal extradition procedures. The GOI has often accused the GON of harboring Pakistani extremists on its territory and has complained of GON inaction against alleged ISI activity within its borders--both of which charges the GON publicly denies. The GON, whose foreign policy is predicated on cultivating good relations with all countries in the region, is unlikely to agree to language that it views as specifically targeting one of those neighbors. Formally sanctioning Indian police activity on Nepali territory is, moreover, certain to rankle national sovereignty sentiments, ever sensitive to perceived interference from this giant neighbor. The GOI's insistence on both points is certain to reinforce the GON view that there is indeed "no point in hurrying," despite the benefits to both countries of the bilateral agreements. MALINOWSKI