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