NEPAL DEPORTS TIBETAN DETAINEES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 000998 SIPDIS STATE FOR SA, SA/INS, DRL - A/S CRANER, AND PRM E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/30/2015 TAGS: SUBJECT: NEPAL DEPORTS TIBETAN DETAINEES REF: A. KATHMANDU 0997 AND PREVIOUS ¶B. STATE 144931 ¶C. KATHMANDU 0991 Classified By: CDA ROBERT K. BOGGS. REASON: 1.5 (B,D). -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) In the early morning hours of May 31, Nepali authorities handed over 18 Tibetan detainees (including 8 minors) to representatives of the Chinese Embassy for deportation. As of 0915 local time, the Chinese Embassy vehicle containing the 18 was reported heading toward the Chinese border with a police escort. UNHCR was denied access to the detainees and to police officials. Embassy efforts to contact high-ranking officials at the Home Ministry and at the police to avert the deportation proved fruitless. At the earliest possible opportunity, the Embassy will register with the Government of Nepal (GON) our protest at its violation of international norms and practices. End summary. -------------- AFTER-HOURS PAPERWORK -------------- ¶2. (SBU) At about 6:00 p.m. local time on May 30, a white van with a license plate identifying it as belonging to the Chinese Embassy appeared at Hanuman Dhoka Jail, where 18 Tibetan detainees (including 8 minors) had been moved the previous day. According to reports from the Office of Tibet, two Chinese Embassy representatives emerged and went inside. The Office of Tibet notified UNHCR, which sent two protection officers to the jail. The officers requested, but were denied, access to the detainees and to police authorities. The officers remained at the jail until about 9:00 p.m., leaving after the Chinese Embassy representatives left. The UNHCR officers were advised to contact the Superintendent of Police after 10:00 a.m. the following (Saturday) morning. Wangchuk Tsering, from the Office of Tibet and the representative of the Dalai Lama in Nepal, said he understood a CNN news crew attempting to cover the story also was barred from entering Hanuman Dhoka on the night of May 30. Poloff attempted to reach Home Ministry officials, including the Home Secretary, at both their homes and offices for several hours that night to no avail. -------------- AND EARLY-MORNING DEPARTURE -------------- ¶3. (SBU) At about 6:00 a.m. local time on May 31, Office of Tibet Representative Wangchuk Tsering reported that the Chinese Embassy van had reappeared at Hanuman Dhoka, along with a second Chinese Embassy vehicle. (Note: Saturdays in Nepal are like what Sundays in the U.S. used to be like, with all government offices and most retail businesses closed. End note.) Tsering said he feared the police were preparing to hand over the Tibetan detainees to the Chinese. Poloff called Home Secretary Tika Datta Niraula at home. A male answered the phone and hung up after she identified herself. Repeated attempts to call back were met with a busy signal (which continued for several hours). She also attempted to contact Ministry Joint Secretary Niranjan Baral at home at 6:00 a.m. and was told he was out. Other attempts to call back were also met with a busy signal. Poloff consulted with a UNHCR protection officer on next steps. The officer said she was planning to consult with Geneva shortly. ¶4. (SBU) Tsering then reported that Office of Tibet members observed the Tibetan detainees being taken out of the jail by police, who were attempting to put them into the Chinese Embassy van. (Note: They observed the scene from some distance, as they were not allowed onto the compound. End note.) When the detainees began screaming in protest, the police loaded all 18 into a police vehicle, which proceeded, followed by the Chinese van, to the Police Club grounds, where the occupants reportedly were transferred to the Chinese vehicle. The Chinese vehicle (with its tell-tale license plate now covered in paper) was proceeding toward the Chinese border with a police escort, Tsering said. -------------- EMBASSY EFFORTS -------------- ¶5. (SBU) When attempts to speak to authorities on the telephone proved fruitless, charge went to Hanuman Dhoka Jail to meet the police and try to avert the detainees' deportation. Unfortunately, however, by the time he arrived there around 8:00 a.m. (the jail is across town),the detainees were already gone. All of the officers on duty claimed to have just begun their shifts, and professed ignorance of the events. Charge attempted to contact the Superintendent of Police at his office, his home and on his cell phone, but was unsuccessful. ¶6. (C) In addition to delivering ref B demarche to the Foreign Secretary and contacting Home Ministry officials (Ref A),Embassy staff, including the Ambassador, have made a number of other representations at high levels on behalf of the Tibetan detainees. On April 25 Ambassador Malinowski spoke with the Home Secretary about the case, and again on May 9 the Ambassador raised the Tibetans' plight with the King, who professed unawareness of the matter but undertook to look into it. On May 28 the Charge again raised the matter with Prabhakar Rana, King Gyanendra's confidant and business partner. On May 29 Charge discussed the problem with a prominent private American citizen, who reported that he had also raised the subject with the King that day. Charge spoke with Rana again on May 31 and asked him to convey to the King USG concerns at the GON's apparent change of policy with regard to Tibetans transiting Nepal. Rana said that he intends to make a detailed proposal to the King, after researching the subject with the Tibetan community, UNHCR, and others, to clarify the GON's position and to formally revert to the past policy of turning over transiting Tibetans to UNHCR. Charge advised UNHCR of Rana's intent. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶7. (C) Home Ministry officials were aware of our (and EU embassies') concern and studiously avoided our efforts to speak and/or meet with them all day May 30 and May 31. The decision to deport the Tibetans despite our repeated representations presumably was taken at the very highest levels of the GON, which made a calculation that the costs of displeasing their giant northern neighbor on this issue far outweighed the possible benefits of responding to the concerns of the rest of the international community. We find it ironic that the GON has so obviously disregarded our expressed views on this matter at the same time that it seems to be responding positively to our pressure to broaden representation in the interim government (Ref C). We will continue to press the GON through all appropriate channels to reinstitute its former practice of turning over Tibetan "persons of concern" to UNHCR. BOGGS