Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06KATHMANDU3184
2006-12-08 04:09:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Kathmandu
Cable title:
NEPAL: TIBETANS VIEW RESETTLEMENT AS ZERO-SUM GAME
how-toVZCZCXRO9831 PP RUEHCI DE RUEHKT #3184/01 3420409 ZNY CCCCC ZZH P 080409Z DEC 06 FM AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4136 INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 5110 RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO PRIORITY 5372 RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA PRIORITY 0540 RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 3371 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 4739 RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 0646 RUEHCI/AMCONSUL CALCUTTA PRIORITY 2907 RHMFISS/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY RUEAHLA/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1361 RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 2210
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 003184
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/08/2016
TAGS: PREF PHUM PGOV PREL CH NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: TIBETANS VIEW RESETTLEMENT AS ZERO-SUM GAME
Classified By: Ambassador James F. Moriarty for reasons 1.4 (b/d).
SUMMARY
-------
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 003184
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/08/2016
TAGS: PREF PHUM PGOV PREL CH NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: TIBETANS VIEW RESETTLEMENT AS ZERO-SUM GAME
Classified By: Ambassador James F. Moriarty for reasons 1.4 (b/d).
SUMMARY
--------------
1. (C) In October 2006, Post's Tibetan-speaking staff
conducted an informal survey of 18 Tibetans on the proposed
resettlement of 60,000 Bhutanese refugees and about refugee
resettlement generally. Generally, the reactions from the
respondents indicated that some Tibetan refugees viewed U.S.
resettlement programs as a zero-sum game, exposing a worry
that U.S. attention toward the Bhutanese refugees could
negatively impact Tibetan prospects for resettlement.
METHODOLOGY
--------------
2. (C) In October 2006, Post's Tibetan-speaking staff
conducted an informal survey of 18 Tibetans on the proposed
resettlement of Bhutanese refugees and about refugee
resettlement generally. Views of third persons were also
sought through those who were interviewed. This is a summary
of the findings, including views of leaders and activists
gleaned from various media sources.
REACTIONS MIXED
--------------
3. (SBU) Generally, the reactions were mixed on the proposed
Bhutanese refugee resettlement program:
a. While many respondents welcomed the news of a resettlement
program for Bhutanese refugees, many also expressed confusion
as to why the U.S. planned to resettle 60,000 Bhutanese
refugees but only 5,000 Tibetans. A number of respondents
opined that they wished the U.S. would resettle all of the
refugees living in Nepal. Some lamented that this indicated
a U.S. preference for the Bhutanese refugees over Tibetans.
They felt they were being treated differently from the
Bhutanese refugees, saying that the latter received
significant aid and attention from the international
community, while Tibetans do not. (Comment: The Tibetan
refugee camps are in much better shape than the Bhutanese
camps. For 15 years, the GON has maintained that the
Bhutanese camps are temporary and has thus allowed neither
electricity nor permanent housing. End Comment.)
b. All respondents agreed that resettlement would bring those
resettled a "better life," including freedom and the
opportunity to contribute to democratic movements.
c. Many Tibetans acknowledged that the Bhutanese refugee
resettlement program would not face the same political
obstacles as the resettlement of the 5,000 Tibetans, noting
that tiny Bhutan could not bring the same political pressure
on Nepal as China could. They hoped, however, that the U.S.
would undertake the resettlement of the 5,000 Tibetans first.
(Comment: Because of the political obstacles to Tibetan
resettlement, it would be unwise to link the two resettlement
programs. End Comment.)
WHO IS MOST VULNERABLE?
--------------
4. (C) Most respondents believed that Tibetan refugees were
more vulnerable than Bhutanese refugees in Nepal, arguing
that the Government of Nepal withheld refugee status from
Tibetans. They also pointed out that, while Nepal helped
Bhutanese refugees in their struggle to return by initiating
talks and pressuring the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB),
Nepal mistreats Tibetans and bans Tibetan democratic
demonstrations. They also raised incidents in which Maoists
threatened Tibetans in refugee settlements, warning that the
Maoists would "kick all of the Tibetans out of Nepal by
setting their houses on fire." Interestingly, almost all of
the respondents agreed with the RGOB in arguing that the
Bhutanese refugees are Nepal's own people, implicitly
KATHMANDU 00003184 002 OF 002
questioning their refugee status.
COMMENT
--------------
5. (C) On average, Tibetans in Nepal are better off than the
Bhutanese refugees. For example, those who hold Refugee
Cards are able to work in Nepal and generally have freedom of
movement and, to a large extent, freedom of religion. Many
Tibetan Buddhist monasteries exist in Nepal allowing the
continuation of Tibetan religious and cultural practices not
permitted in Tibet. While their fears are unfounded, it
comes as no great surprise that Tibetan refugees see
themselves in competition with the Bhutanese refugees in
Nepal when it comes to resettlement. The view that U.S.
resettlement programs are a zero-sum game erodes possible
solidarity among refugees more broadly, solidarity that could
ultimately further the interests of all refugees in Nepal.
MORIARTY
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/08/2016
TAGS: PREF PHUM PGOV PREL CH NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: TIBETANS VIEW RESETTLEMENT AS ZERO-SUM GAME
Classified By: Ambassador James F. Moriarty for reasons 1.4 (b/d).
SUMMARY
--------------
1. (C) In October 2006, Post's Tibetan-speaking staff
conducted an informal survey of 18 Tibetans on the proposed
resettlement of 60,000 Bhutanese refugees and about refugee
resettlement generally. Generally, the reactions from the
respondents indicated that some Tibetan refugees viewed U.S.
resettlement programs as a zero-sum game, exposing a worry
that U.S. attention toward the Bhutanese refugees could
negatively impact Tibetan prospects for resettlement.
METHODOLOGY
--------------
2. (C) In October 2006, Post's Tibetan-speaking staff
conducted an informal survey of 18 Tibetans on the proposed
resettlement of Bhutanese refugees and about refugee
resettlement generally. Views of third persons were also
sought through those who were interviewed. This is a summary
of the findings, including views of leaders and activists
gleaned from various media sources.
REACTIONS MIXED
--------------
3. (SBU) Generally, the reactions were mixed on the proposed
Bhutanese refugee resettlement program:
a. While many respondents welcomed the news of a resettlement
program for Bhutanese refugees, many also expressed confusion
as to why the U.S. planned to resettle 60,000 Bhutanese
refugees but only 5,000 Tibetans. A number of respondents
opined that they wished the U.S. would resettle all of the
refugees living in Nepal. Some lamented that this indicated
a U.S. preference for the Bhutanese refugees over Tibetans.
They felt they were being treated differently from the
Bhutanese refugees, saying that the latter received
significant aid and attention from the international
community, while Tibetans do not. (Comment: The Tibetan
refugee camps are in much better shape than the Bhutanese
camps. For 15 years, the GON has maintained that the
Bhutanese camps are temporary and has thus allowed neither
electricity nor permanent housing. End Comment.)
b. All respondents agreed that resettlement would bring those
resettled a "better life," including freedom and the
opportunity to contribute to democratic movements.
c. Many Tibetans acknowledged that the Bhutanese refugee
resettlement program would not face the same political
obstacles as the resettlement of the 5,000 Tibetans, noting
that tiny Bhutan could not bring the same political pressure
on Nepal as China could. They hoped, however, that the U.S.
would undertake the resettlement of the 5,000 Tibetans first.
(Comment: Because of the political obstacles to Tibetan
resettlement, it would be unwise to link the two resettlement
programs. End Comment.)
WHO IS MOST VULNERABLE?
--------------
4. (C) Most respondents believed that Tibetan refugees were
more vulnerable than Bhutanese refugees in Nepal, arguing
that the Government of Nepal withheld refugee status from
Tibetans. They also pointed out that, while Nepal helped
Bhutanese refugees in their struggle to return by initiating
talks and pressuring the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB),
Nepal mistreats Tibetans and bans Tibetan democratic
demonstrations. They also raised incidents in which Maoists
threatened Tibetans in refugee settlements, warning that the
Maoists would "kick all of the Tibetans out of Nepal by
setting their houses on fire." Interestingly, almost all of
the respondents agreed with the RGOB in arguing that the
Bhutanese refugees are Nepal's own people, implicitly
KATHMANDU 00003184 002 OF 002
questioning their refugee status.
COMMENT
--------------
5. (C) On average, Tibetans in Nepal are better off than the
Bhutanese refugees. For example, those who hold Refugee
Cards are able to work in Nepal and generally have freedom of
movement and, to a large extent, freedom of religion. Many
Tibetan Buddhist monasteries exist in Nepal allowing the
continuation of Tibetan religious and cultural practices not
permitted in Tibet. While their fears are unfounded, it
comes as no great surprise that Tibetan refugees see
themselves in competition with the Bhutanese refugees in
Nepal when it comes to resettlement. The view that U.S.
resettlement programs are a zero-sum game erodes possible
solidarity among refugees more broadly, solidarity that could
ultimately further the interests of all refugees in Nepal.
MORIARTY