NEPAL: MINISTERIAL MEETING FAILS TO RESOLVE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KATHMANDU 000977

SIPDIS

STATE FOR SA/INS AND PRM
LONDON FOR POL - GURNEY
GENEVA FOR THOMAS-GREENFIELD

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/26/2013
TAGS: PREF PREL NP BT
SUBJECT: NEPAL: MINISTERIAL MEETING FAILS TO RESOLVE
TROUBLING QUESTIONS FOR BHUTANESE REFUGEES

REF: A. NEW DELHI 2592

B. NEW DELHI 2591

C. GENEVA 1277

D. STATE 93923

E. KATHMANDU 0565

Classified By: CDA ROBERT K. BOGGS. REASON: 1.5 (B,D).

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


1. (C) Summary and Action Request: The 14th bilateral
meeting between the Foreign Ministers of Nepal and Bhutan
concluded on May 22 without clarifying a number of crucial
issues, including the status of thousands of Bhutanese
refugees who must reapply for citizenship upon their return,
and the role of UNHCR in the repatriation process. The two
governments plan to publish the results of the joint
verification report at the first refugee camp in June.
Although "logistical details" concerning repatriation are to
be addressed at the next ministerial, scheduled to be held in
August in Thimpu, key questions like where the refugees will
be resettled in Bhutan or what happens to those who do not
qualify for citizenship, do not appear to be on the agenda.
A rather optimistic timeline has the first refugees
repatriated to Bhutan in September. The Government of Nepal
(GON) is relying--we think somewhat naively--upon Bhutanese
"flexibility" and donor pressure to ensure that repatriation
proceeds smoothly. Action Request: Embassy requests that
the Department consider instructing embassies in Bhutanese
donor capitals to demarche their host governments to urge
Government of Bhutan to meet its commitments and engage the
UNHCR in repatriation. A parallel demarche could be made
directly to Bhutanese officials in New Delhi. End summary
and action request.

--------------
GON HAILS 14TH MINISTERIAL A SUCCESS
--------------


2. (U) The 14th Ministerial Joint Committee Meeting between
the Foreign Ministers of Bhutan and Nepal to address the
Bhutanese refugee issue was held in Kathmandu from May 19 to

22. The Ministerial adopted the findings of the Joint
Verification Team (JVT),which categorized the first 12,000
refugees to be considered for possible repatriation to
Bhutan. The Ministerial directed the JVT to verify the
status of 600 "absentee" refugees, to inform the 12,000
residents of the first verified camp of the findings by
mid-June and to allow a two-week appeals process thereafter.
A 15th Ministerial, to be held in Thimpu from August 11-14,
will formally approve the JVT report. Local press reports
quoted an unnamed Government of Nepal (GON) source
participating in the Ministerial as lauding the "significant"
progress toward resolution of the 13-year-old issue achieved
during the meeting.

--------------
MOST RETURNEES MAY FACE CITIZENSHIP LIMBO
--------------


3. (SBU) On May 23 poloff, accompanied by the First
Secretary from the UK Embassy, met with Dr. Madan Kumar

SIPDIS
Bhattarai, MFA Spokesman and Joint Secretary for South Asian
Affairs, for a readout on the Ministerial. Bhattarai
sketched out a timeline for eventual repatriation of the
first tranche of verified returnees. (Note: Refugees were
"verified" to be in one of four categories: (i) those
forcibly evicted; (ii) those who voluntarily migrated; (iii)
non-Bhutanese; and (iv) criminals. End note.) The JVT will
announce the results of the first verification exercise in
Khundanabari Camp from June 8 to July 17 and will attempt to
verify the 600 refugees not present when the exercise was
conducted. From June 18 to July 7, the JVT will accept
appeals from refugees disputing their categorization,
although only new "material evidence" will be reviewed. From
July 8-31 the JVT will review the appeals and make
recommendations. The 15th Ministerial (August 11-14)
meeting will be held in Thimpu to endorse the JVT's final
report and to address "logistical details" concerning
repatriation. On August 25 the JVT will begin distributing
citizenship application forms and other documents to those
refugees in the second category who must reapply for
Bhutanese citizenship upon return. If all goes according to
schedule, repatriation of the first tranche of returnees
could begin by September 25.


4. (C) Bhattarai said that 75 percent of the refugees from
the first camp were determined to be Bhutanese eligible for
repatriation as members of either Categories I or II, which,
he indicated, is higher than what the GON had originally
anticipated (Ref E). Because the overwhelming majority of
that number, he acknowledged, were determined to have
"voluntarily" migrated from Bhutan, they must reapply for
Bhutanese citizenship upon return. Returnees from both
Categories I and II will go to "some camp for some
unspecified time," Bhattarai said; the questions of where and
for how long were not addressed in the latest Ministerial or
in any previous meeting. The Government of Bhutan had
pledged in writing that returned refugees would be provided
some sort of "livelihood," Bhattarai confirmed, but no
further discussion of arrangements for their accommodation,
employment, or education has taken place. Also not
discussed, apparently, was what might happen to Category II
returnees--the bulk of those to be repatriated--whose
reapplication for Bhutanese citizenship is ultimately turned
down. Finally, the Ministerial did not take up the sticky
topic of UNHCR involvement in the repatriation process,
Bhattarai conceded. When asked if these difficult questions
might be addressed in the August Ministerial, Bhattarai did
not seem hopeful.

--------------
"TICKLISH" PROBLEM: WHAT TO DO
WITH THOSE WHO WON'T GO BACK
--------------


5. (C) Because all repatriation must be voluntary, the GON
is prepared to allow those refugees not wishing to return to
Bhutan to apply for Nepali citizenship, Bhattarai reported.
Poloff asked on what basis citizenship might be granted,
since under current law only the children of Nepali citizen
fathers qualify. (Note: Even children born in Nepal of
Nepali citizen mothers do not qualify for citizenship if
their fathers are foreign. End note.) Bhattarai
acknowledged the legal hurdle, but reiterated that the GON
nonetheless has offered to allow the refugees to apply for
citizenship to address this "ticklish" problem.

--------------
SUPPORT FROM DONORS, INDIANS NEEDED
TO ENSURE BHUTANESE "FLEXIBILITY"
--------------


6. (C) Poloff and the representative from the British
Embassy expressed concern that so many details, certain to be
important to refugees contemplating returning to Bhutan after
more than a decade, had been left unanswered. They
speculated that the refugees would surely want information on
where they would be living, what they would be doing for a
living, whether their children would be educated, and some
assurance of international oversight of the repatriation
process before making a final decision. Delegations from the
camps already have raised these questions and others in a
number of meetings with the diplomatic community in
Kathmandu, the emboffs noted. If members of the first
tranche find inhospitable conditions upon their return to
Bhutan, word will get back to the rest of the camps, possibly
discouraging others from applying for repatriation and
leaving Nepal with a greater number of refugees to absorb,
they cautioned. Poloff suggested that the international
community might find it difficult to support a repatriation
process that did not make provision for such oversight, a
role best performed by UNHCR. (Note: UNHCR in Kathmandu
confirmed to the Embassy on May 28 that the Government of
Bhutan has still not extended an invitation to special envoy
Jahanshah Assadi to visit. End note.) Bhattarai responded
that the Bhutanese had "privately assured" the GON of their
good faith in providing for returnees, as well as their
"flexibility" in applying their generally rigorous standards
for citizenship to refugees. The Bhutanese Foreign Minister
had expressly asked his Nepali counterpart that questions
about the resettlement process in Bhutan "be left to the
Bhutanese side," Bhattarai said. Pressure from the donor
community and the Government of India will be critical to
ensuring that Bhutan keep to its commitments, he concluded.
(MFA Foreign Secretary Madhu Raman Acharya urged the same
point to CDA on May 26.)

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


7. (C) After more than a year of no progress, the GON seems
pleased to have an agreement that, at least in theory, allows
for the repatriation of most of the refugees. It seems
doubtful to us, however, that the refugees will feel
reassured by a repatriation process the implementation of
which is left exclusively to the same government that
expelled them 13 years earlier. Our views are shared by our
colleagues in the diplomatic community, including the
British, the Germans, and the EU. Given the number of
unknowns confronting prospective returnees--especially the
majority who are deemed to have forfeited Bhutanese
citizenship by "voluntarily" migrating--it seems difficult to
believe that a significant number will agree to go back. We
are especially concerned that both governments seem prepared
to initiate a process that appears to exclude UNHCR. The GON
is clearly looking to the international community (including
the Indians) to use its influence to hold the Bhutanese to
their commitment to conduct a good-faith repatriation effort.
At a minimum, we believe that effort must include a role for
UNHCR.



8. (C) Demarche Request: Embassy requests that the
Department instruct embassies in Bhutanese donor capitals to
demarche host nation governments to urge the Government of
Bhutan (GOB) to fulfill its bilateral commitment to
repatriation. The GOB should be further encouraged to permit
full UNHCR involvement in the process, starting with a visit
by the UNHCR special envoy, to ensure compliance with
international human rights standards. Embassy further
requests that the Department consider a parallel demarche to
GOB officials in New Delhi.
BOGGS