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