UNHCR BRIEFING ON ROHINGYA CAMPS

C O N F I D E N T I A L DHAKA 003064

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/24/2016
TAGS: PHUM PREF BG
SUBJECT: UNHCR BRIEFING ON ROHINGYA CAMPS

REF: A. STATE 60235

B. DHAKA 2466

Classified By: D.C. McCullough, reason para 1.4 d.


1. (C) After visiting the Rohingya refugee camps, UNHCR
Bureau of Asia-Pacific Director Janet Lim briefed the
diplomatic corps on the situation there and the proposed
UNHCR response. The physical conditions of the camps have
deteriorated since her December 2004 visit, she said, the BDG
continues to be a corrupt and uncooperative implementing
partner, and the UNHCR wants to develop an exit strategy in
cooperation with the international community.


2. (C) Lim suggested convening a stakeholders meeting in
Geneva as a first step. In October, the UNHCR would formally
invite representatives of Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and
any nation that might be willing to support resettlement or
integration. The tentative date for this stakeholders
meeting is March 2007. The UNHCR believes it is senseless to
begin the process earlier because of the Bangladeshi
elections expected in January 2007. The main objective is to
develop a strategy and timeline for shutting down the camps
by December 2008.


3. (C) COM's from the UK and the European Commission
strongly supported the idea of camp closure and the
stakeholder conference. The UK High Commissioner listed
three elements for a successful plan of action: an
operational plan to improve camp conditions prior to closure;
a political plan to get cooperation from the BDG; and a
deadline for actually closing the camps to show the BDG that
the UNHCR and the international community are serious about
camp closure. He also said that while the UNHCR must behave
as if the December 2008 is not negotiable, they could not
realistically close the camps that early.


4. (C) The UK High Commissioner also emphasized the need to
keep secret the decisions of the stakeholder conference. If
the public suspects a developed country is accepting
Rohingyan refugees, the number of people seeking refuge could
grow tenfold overnight with malafide applicants. If the BDG
believes the UNHCR supports local integration, the UN will
get no cooperation from the BDG on any issue. If
repatriation to Myanmar is the best option, there will be
allegations of forcing "defenseless" refugees back into the
hands of a repressive regime.


5. (C) There was a consensus that the best way to improve
camp conditions is to stop channeling funds the Ministry of
Food and Disaster Management due to their history of high
cost, inefficient, and corrupt management of the camps.
Several persons suggested that MFA lead a working group to
implement the sub-agreement with UNHCR. The local head of
the UNHCR, Pia Prytz Phiri, said she would follow up on this
suggestion.


6. (C) Comment: Rohingya refugee camps do not meet minimal
international standards for food, water, shelter, health,
hygiene or education. (REFTEL A) There are, however,
significant problems with all the solutions suggested at this
meeting. There is no reliable form of identification to stop
impostors from applying for refuge, and no other country has
agreed to accept the Rohingyas. The BDG has always strongly
opposed local integration, and gives no indication of
changing its policy. The Rohingyas who remain in Bangladesh
fear persecution under the Myanmar regime, and forced
repatriation is not a long term solution along a porous
border. While we continue to encourage the BDG to allow
UNHCR and NGO's to provide adequate services to the Rohingyas
(REFTEL B),no durable solution is in sight.
BUTENIS