Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05GENEVA909
2005-04-08 14:59:00
CONFIDENTIAL
US Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

BHUTANESE REFUGEES PRESENT THEIR HISTORY AND

Tags:  PREF NP PHUM BT PREL UNHCR 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 GENEVA 000909 

SIPDIS

USUN FOR MALY; BRUSSELS FOR MEZNAR

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/07/2010
TAGS: PREF NP PHUM BT PREL UNHCR
SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEES PRESENT THEIR HISTORY AND
CURRENT COMPLAINTS; UNHCR PLACES RESETTLEMENT ON THE TABLE


Classified By: RMA Piper Campbell reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 GENEVA 000909

SIPDIS

USUN FOR MALY; BRUSSELS FOR MEZNAR

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/07/2010
TAGS: PREF NP PHUM BT PREL UNHCR
SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEES PRESENT THEIR HISTORY AND
CURRENT COMPLAINTS; UNHCR PLACES RESETTLEMENT ON THE TABLE


Classified By: RMA Piper Campbell reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (SBU) Summary. At a private meeting on the margins of the
UN Commission on Human Rights, the Bhutanese refugee
delegation presented a video explaining the facts of their
flight and situation in Nepal, and drawing governmental
attention to their desire for durable solutions. Missionoff
persuaded NGO participants not to promote abandonment of
bilateral discussions, but to press the Government of Nepal
to approve commencement of refugee re-registration, essential
to any durable solution. Discussion drew attention to
reductions in UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
assistance to the refugees. At the UNHCR Working Group on
Resettlement (WGR) the day before, UNHCR presented the
argument for commencing a resettlement program now. End
Summary.


2. (U) Bhutanese refugees attending the current session of
the UN Commission on Human Rights invited Mission to a
private meeting held April 6, attended by reps from the
Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, and Ireland as well as UNHCR
(Asia Bureau Sr. Protection Officer Peter Janssen),the
Nepalese Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International,
Lutheran World Federation, and the Habitat International
Housing and Land Rights Network. The refugees'
representatives, Mr. Ratan Gazmere (also on the delegation to
UNHCR Executive Committee meeting in October 2004),Mr. Til
Bahadur Gurung, and Ms. Sushma Chhetri have produced a video
on the history of the Bhutanese refugees. It made multiple
references to USG human rights reports and activities in
support of their rights. The video concluded that progress
toward finding durable solutions for refugees ground to a
halt in 2004.

UNHCR Assistance Described as Forcing Local Integration


3. (U) Gazmere described the issues from the refugee point of
view. It is time, he said, to explore alternatives other
than the repatriation they have always desired - which we
took as an implicit, and growing, interest in third-country
resettlement. Refugees feel that they are being "forcibly

locally integrated" by virtue of former HC Lubbers'
determination that UNHCR assistance to Bhutanese refugees
would be phased out. They see cuts to assistance in Nepal
this year as directly connected to that policy.


4. (C) Missionoff Lynch told the refugees that UNHCR has
stated that it no longer has a phase-out policy and that the
USG is strongly supportive of UNHCR providing assistance to
refugees at international standards. Internal communications
received April 7, however, from UNHCR gives some credence to
the refugees' claims that UNHCR is trying to work itself away
from current assistance levels.

Durable Solutions: the Crux of the Matter


5. (U) The refugees and LWF suggested that, given former HC
Lubbers' 2003 statement that UNHCR would stop pursuing
repatriation, and the King of Bhutan's statement in New Delhi
in January that "none of the refugees are really Bhutanese"
(sic),the time may have come to abandon hope for
repatriation and focus solely on "other" durable solutions
(given the aversion to local integration noted above, this
would leave third country resettlement as the sole option).
Missionoff noted that the USG had not abandoned hope of
progress on repatriation, and still felt strongly that it was
an option that refugees deserved to be offered. She noted,
however, that there is a parallel acknowledgment that
refugees also deserve not to be left in limbo for decades.
Lynch encouraged LWF and the refugees to press the Government
of Nepal, as the USG is doing, to allow the refugee
re-registration to begin, stressing that it is the basis for
all of the durable solutions. Missionoff said there is no
need to cut off the possibility of repatriation in order to
move forward on the prerequisites for resettlement.


6. (C) In the general discussion of USG efforts in 2004,
UNHCR (Janssen) pointed out that the very fruitful dialog
between the EU (sic - the dialog was with the European
Commission, and did not include member states) and the U.S.
had been abandoned by the EU "for unknown reasons". EU
Member States present took note of the comment. Janssen
added that Bhutan opposes resettlement because it fears
having its human rights record exposed by a refugee diaspora,
and suggested that fact should be used as leverage -- he
suggested that movement on refugee resettlement could prompt
Bhutan to move on repatriation.

WGR Discussion on Resettlement of Bhutanese Refugees


7. (SBU) Janssen had aired variations on these themes the
previous day to members of the WGR. Nepal seemed to have
fallen off member countries' radars even though the new
government was showing a new openness to solutions. He said
the new government seemed more conscious that the status quo
was unstable and unsustainable. Indications of a new openness
hadn't translated yet into anything concrete, but the
Nepalese seem to have begun to understand that
re-registration and Project Profile are linked not just to
local integration but also third-country resettlement. At the
same time, Janssen said both the international and bilateral
processes had stalled. He therefore pressed members to
provide more concrete numbers of how many persons from Nepal
they can resettle, as more concrete numbers might help the
GON understand that repatriation can be a solution for a
significant number of refugees.


8. (SBU) The Chair turned to members, asking whether
resettlement countries could indicate a willingness to
participate in the proposed resettlement program. The
representative from Canada broke the silence, saying that he
could not commit to a resettlement program on the spot or
change his government's official position -- which calls for
a comprehensive solution of return, resettlement and local
integration. Nevertheless, he said he was not unwilling to
reconsider the plan of action if necessary. Refugee
Counselor reviewed U.S. efforts, including high-level visits
to the region. She agreed the status quo was untenable. The
U.S. was not ready to commit to resettling a certain number
but was very ready to participate in further discussion. We
had made clear to Nepal our readiness to be involved and the
importance of registration as a first step. No
representative offered or promised a concrete number. There
was no open disagreement to the Chair's suggestion that
members hold a special session to discuss this issue further.
Janssen urged further consideration of solving the cases
which could be solved and not insisting first and only on the
comprehensive approach.

COMMENT


9. (C) Current Mission staff have followed the pursuit of
durable solutions for Bhutanese refugees for close to three
years, and share UNHCR's and the refugees' frustration that
things are again stalled. The Maoist insurgency is an
increasing threat to a successful pursuit of durable
solutions as it may threaten access to refugees for
resettlement interviews. In addition, refugees without hopes
for alternative solutions seem more likely to be vulnerable
to the Maoists' persuasion, which in the end could render
them ineligible for U.S. resettlement. The keys to forward
movement are first and foremost the government of Nepal
approving refugee re-registration, and second, but
importantly for the principle of non-impunity, the Bhutanese
accepting the return at least of the small number of refugees
that it recognizes as Bhutanese citizens. End Comment.


Moley