Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05KATHMANDU2568
2005-11-25 09:15:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Kathmandu
Cable title:  

FM PANDEY: NO PROGRESS ON BHUTANESE REFUGEES

Tags:  PREF PREL PTER CVIS NP 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0007
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKT #2568/01 3290915
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 250915Z NOV 05
FM AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9242
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING IMMEDIATE 3694
RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO IMMEDIATE 3967
RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA IMMEDIATE 9003
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 1930
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON IMMEDIATE 3387
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 8841
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA IMMEDIATE 0167
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA IMMEDIATE 1038
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 1705
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
C O N F I D E N T I A L KATHMANDU 002568 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM, CA/VO
NSC FOR RICHELSOPH

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/25/2015
TAGS: PREF PREL PTER CVIS NP
SUBJECT: FM PANDEY: NO PROGRESS ON BHUTANESE REFUGEES

REF: A. NEW DELHI 8893


B. KATHMANDU 1819

Classified By: Amb. James F. Moriarty, Reason 1.4 (b/d)

FM Doubts Bhutan Commitment to Start Returns
---------------------------------------------

C O N F I D E N T I A L KATHMANDU 002568

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM, CA/VO
NSC FOR RICHELSOPH

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/25/2015
TAGS: PREF PREL PTER CVIS NP
SUBJECT: FM PANDEY: NO PROGRESS ON BHUTANESE REFUGEES

REF: A. NEW DELHI 8893


B. KATHMANDU 1819

Classified By: Amb. James F. Moriarty, Reason 1.4 (b/d)

FM Doubts Bhutan Commitment to Start Returns
--------------


1. (C) In a November 23 discussion with the Ambassador,
Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey relayed the gist of his
unfruitful discussion with the Bhutanese Foreign Minister
held on the margins of the SAARC meeting in Dhaka. Pandey
lamented that, after having agreed in writing in September to
take back the Categories 1 and 4 refugees from Khudunabari,
the RGOB now seemed intent on stalling the repatriation
process. (Note: This is a sharply different description of
recent RGOB-GON communications on the refugee issue than that
provided ref A. End note.) Pandey said that the Bhutanese
FM had reiterated the proposal that Pandey visit Thimpu prior
to any repatriation. Pandey had again rejected such a visit
until after Bhutan had begun implementing the agreement to
repatriate refugees. The Bhutanese FM had then suggested
that Bhutan send a team to Khudunabari to explain what the
returnees could expect upon their return. Pandey pushed back
strongly, fearing a repeat of the December 2003 events when
the Bhutanese officials' discussion with the refugees had
provoked a near riot in the Khudunabari refugee camp. Pandey
had emphasized to his Bhutanese counterpart the need to start
the repatriation process, as Nepal and Bhutan had earlier
agreed.


2. (C) Very concerned about Bhutan's apparent intransigence,
Pandey told the Ambassador that he was considering writing
another letter to the RGOB urging the Bhutanese to implement
their agreement to take back the refugees. The Ambassador
suggested that Pandey give the Bhutanese a reasonable date,
i.e., one-two months, to start the return process, failing
which, Nepal would internationalize the problem. The FM
welcomed the idea.


3. (C) Pandey stressed that Nepal's primary concern was the
fate of the ethnic Nepalis still living in Bhutan; he feared
that if there were no returns, Bhutan would conclude that it
could get away with another round of ethnic cleansing. The
FM emphasized that it was important that Nepal not take any
steps that could relieve the pressure on Bhutan to start
repatriating its citizens. He explained that was the reason
Nepal had not issued travel documents to the three minor
girls, one of whom was raped (ref B). Although he recognized
the case was urgent and valid on humanitarian grounds, he
reiterated that, at this time, Nepal would not take any steps
to ease the pressure on Bhutan by setting a precedent of
resettling Bhutanese refugees in third countries. The
Ambassador noted that the current situation also did not
appear to provide any checks on the possibility of future
expulsions by the RGOB; if returns were never going to occur,
it would be better for the international community to clearly
denounce the 1990 expulsion and begin resettling the
refugees. Pandey agreed and reiterated that setting a
deadline for action by the RGOB could be the way to go.

Tibetan Refugees
--------------


4. (C) The Ambassador pushed the Foreign Minister to register
the Tibetan Welfare Society. Pandey responded that the USG
should focus on the protection of the welfare of Tibetan
refugees and not pursue a "political issue." The Ambassador
agreed that ensuring the refugees' safe transit to India was
important. He noted that it was our hope that the Lutheran
World Federation would prove a reliable and efficient partner
For UNHCR.

Travel Documents For "Follow-to Join" Cases
--------------


5. (C) The Ambassador raised our concern about our
long-standing request that the government issue travel
documents to allow Tibetan refugees resident in Nepal to
emigrate to "follow-to join" relatives who have been granted
asylum in the U.S. The Ambassador noted that this could
become a major issue for the USG. The Foreign Minister took
note and said he would look into it.
MORIARTY

Share this cable

 facebook -  bluesky -