BHUTANESE REFUGEES: DEBATE TO THE FORE IN NEPAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 001147 SIPDIS DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM/ANE; LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY; NSC FOR MILLARD; GENEVA FOR PLYNCH; NEW DELHI FOR SNAIR E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/18/2014 TAGS: PREF PTER PHUM NP BH SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEES: DEBATE TO THE FORE IN NEPAL REF: A. KATHMANDU 230 ¶B. KATHMANDU 1026 ¶C. STATE 124885 ¶D. KATHMANDU 1054 ¶E. KATHMANDU 594 Classified By: CDA Janet Bogue; Reasons 1.5 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: For the first time, local integration and third-country resettlement of refugees have became a public topic of debate by UNHCR and Nepali officials. Frustrated by inaction, a UNHCR official raised the subject in a press interview only to have his three-pronged plan for refugee settlement firmly repudiated by the Nepali Foreign Secretary. Meanwhile, a quiet visit by the Assistant to the Under-Secretary of Political Affairs at the UN has revealed some new insights into Nepal's and India's concerns. END SUMMARY. =========================== THE DISCUSSION TURNS PUBLIC =========================== ¶2. (C) UNHCR Representative to Nepal Abraham Abraham, just back from Geneva, warned PolOff on June 16th that he had raised local integration and third-country resettlement publicly for the first time, and that the issue was likely to appear in the press. Abraham noted that the ideas he had raised were not new, but the Government of Nepal's unwillingness to allow even a socio-economic and population survey of the refugees had stalled any movement on the Nepali side of the border. True to Abraham's predictions, on June 17, the Kathmandu Post (which also carried a Ruud Lubbers OpEd on refugees that failed to mention the Bhutanese) carried a front page article in which Abraham described the burden-sharing process (repatriation, local intergration and third-country resettlement) and hoped the approach would be "acceptable to all parties." ¶3. (SBU) Repudiating the first public airing of the possibility of local integration, Foreign Secretary Madhu Acharya was quoted in the article as saying, "Anything leading to, suggestive of and indicating integration of the Bhutanese nationals in Nepal will not be acceptable to us." Acharya went on to say, "In fact, we will not accept any proposal that is obstructive to the repatriation of the refugees to their homeland. Even the option of resettlement in third countries will discourage repatriation." ======================= AS THE UN COMES CALLING ======================= ¶4. (C) Meanwhile, over the past 10 days, Tamrat Samuel, the Assistant to the Under-Secretray of Political Affairs at the UN has been in Kathmandu for quiet discussions on the insurgency and the Bhutanese refugees. Matthew Kahane, the UNDP Resident Representative to Nepal, told the DCM on June 18 that Samuel had met with Foreign Secretary Acharya, Indian Ambassador to Nepal (and soon-to-be Indian Foreign Secretary) Shyam Saran and others as part of a "low-key fact-finding mission" vis-a-vis the refugees. Tamrat reportedly also conveyed the Secretary General's concerns that a lack of resolution of the refugee issue could have serious security implications for India, Nepal and Bhutan. According to Kahane, Ambassador Saran made very clear to Samuel that the Indian Goverment was increasingly concerned about the impact that potentially radicalized refugees would have for Nepal, and by extension, for India (Ref D and E). ¶5. (C) Samuel's discussion with Nepali Foreign Secretary Acharya, on the other hand, reportedly focused more on the unfolding dynamic between Nepal and Bhutan. Acharya allegedly told Samuel that the Bhutanese had informed the Government of Nepal that they would be willing to accept the report on the December 22, 2003 incident in the Khudunabari refugee camp except for one sentence, which states that the conditions for return to Bhutan must be acceptable to the refugees themselves. Acharya indicated that he was reluctant to support this change for three reasons: 1) while Bhutan could respond, it was procedurally incorrect for the GOB to ask Nepal to change Nepal's version of the report; 2) Acharya believed the language of that particular sentence was correct and appropriate; and, 3) while the Government of Bhutan had made the request for the change four times by phone, they appeared unwilling to put the request in writing. In any case, Acharya reportedly added, a Nepali decision on a response to the Bhutanese Government would have to wait for a new Nepali Foreign Minister to be appointed (the Prime Minister at present holds that portfolio). BOGUE