Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06KATHMANDU894
2006-04-04 12:25:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Kathmandu
Cable title:
AMBASSADOR DISCUSSES BHUTANESE REFUGEES WITH
how-toVZCZCXYZ0029 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHKT #0894/01 0941225 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 041225Z APR 06 FM AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0989 INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 4138 RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 0339 RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO PRIORITY 4408 RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN PRIORITY 0305 RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA PRIORITY 9492 RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 2385 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 3791 RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 9483 RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 0217 RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE PRIORITY 0280 RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 0741 RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1100 RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L KATHMANDU 000894
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR SCA/INS, PRM
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/04/2016
TAGS: PREF IN NP JA AS BT
SUBJECT: AMBASSADOR DISCUSSES BHUTANESE REFUGEES WITH
AUSTRALIAN AND JAPANESE COUNTERPARTS
REF: KATHMANDU 836
Classified By: Ambassador James F. Moriarty. Reasons 1.4 (b/d).
Australia and Japan Interested in
Bhutanese Refugee Issue
----------------------------------
C O N F I D E N T I A L KATHMANDU 000894
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR SCA/INS, PRM
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/04/2016
TAGS: PREF IN NP JA AS BT
SUBJECT: AMBASSADOR DISCUSSES BHUTANESE REFUGEES WITH
AUSTRALIAN AND JAPANESE COUNTERPARTS
REF: KATHMANDU 836
Classified By: Ambassador James F. Moriarty. Reasons 1.4 (b/d).
Australia and Japan Interested in
Bhutanese Refugee Issue
--------------
1. (C) On April 3, Australian Ambassador Graeme Lade and
Japanese Ambassador Tsutomu Hiraoka separately met with the
Ambassador to discuss the Bhutanese refugee issue. While
neither the Australians nor the Japanese could immediately
agree to the idea of a joint approach with the Danes and
Norwegians to Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey on
internationalizing the Bhutanese refugee issue (reftel),both
stated they would consult with their capitals, and expressed
continued interest in finding a durable solution for the
Bhutanese refugees.
Australia Likely To Resettle Refugees
--------------
2. (C) According to Ambassador Lade, Australia had wanted to
finalize its Bhutanese refugee policy in advance of the March
core group meeting in Geneva, but events elsewhere in the
world had prevented this. Ambassador Lade expected Canberra
to set policy on Bhutan soon, and noted it was likely that
Australia would be willing to accept a number of Bhutanese
refugees for resettlement as they tended to be well educated,
spoke good English, and were generally easier to settle than
other refugee groups. Even if Australia were unable to
participate in a joint meeting with Foreign Minister Pandey,
Ambassador Lade was confident that he could call on the
Foreign Minister individually to stress similar points, as
the GOA was increasingly convinced that internationalization
may be the best way forward. However, he noted that he was
still having difficulty getting Canberra to understand why
local integration of refugees was not the best option. He
stated that Former Prime Minister Deuba had told him that
Nepal would have to change its constitution to allow the
refugees to become citizens, and as it was unlikely that
would happen, he was urging Canberra to support third-country
resettlement of most of the refugees. He explained that he
expected Australia to become more engaged on the issue,
acknowledging that, while Australians had attended core group
meetings in the past, to date they had tended to take a back
seat.
Japan Wonders What "Internationalization" Means
-------------- --
3. (C) Ambassador Hiraoka questioned what
"internationalization" entailed. He could not recall an
example of a similar ad hoc conference and noted that,
depending on the forum, a different MOFA bureau in Tokyo
would be responsible for the issue. He wondered what Japan
would be asked to do, pointing out that it would be difficult
for Japan to accept refugees, and that he believed
resettlement countries generally bore the full expense of
resettling the refugees. The Ambassador responded that
accepting refugees for resettlement was only one way to help
the process, and noted there were other ways that Japan could
be helpful as the internationalization process evolved. The
Ambassador stressed the urgency of moving ahead as the
security situation surrounding the camps deteriorated.
Need To Involve India
--------------
4. (C) Ambassadors Lade and Hiraoka both commented that their
New Delhi Embassies had the lead on Bhutan. Ambassador
Hiraoka explained that the Japanese Embassy in New Delhi
"loved" Bhutan, and did not want to offend India by pressing
Bhutanese issues. Ambassador Lade noted similar sentiments
in the Australian Embassy in New Delhi. He pointed out that
Indian pressure on Bhutan was key, as Australia had little
leverage with Bhutan. He cautioned that the Australian
Embassy in New Delhi, and some in Canberra, did not want to
revisit the 1990-1991 expulsion of the refugees from Bhutan.
Ambassador Lade noted that, while the expulsion could not
have happened without the consent (and assistance) of India,
it would be difficult to now condemn India's role. However,
Ambassador Lade and the Ambassador agreed that the GOI had an
important role to play in guaranteeing that the Bhutanese did
not expel the remaining 125,000-plus ethnic Nepalese living
in Bhutan.
Comment
--------------
5. (C) There seems to be agreement among the diplomatic
community in Kathmandu that there is a need to
"internationalize" the Bhutanese refugee issue in order to
come up with a durable solution, although these discussions
indicate there is a need to develop a consensus on what
"internationalization" actually entails.
MORIARTY
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR SCA/INS, PRM
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/04/2016
TAGS: PREF IN NP JA AS BT
SUBJECT: AMBASSADOR DISCUSSES BHUTANESE REFUGEES WITH
AUSTRALIAN AND JAPANESE COUNTERPARTS
REF: KATHMANDU 836
Classified By: Ambassador James F. Moriarty. Reasons 1.4 (b/d).
Australia and Japan Interested in
Bhutanese Refugee Issue
--------------
1. (C) On April 3, Australian Ambassador Graeme Lade and
Japanese Ambassador Tsutomu Hiraoka separately met with the
Ambassador to discuss the Bhutanese refugee issue. While
neither the Australians nor the Japanese could immediately
agree to the idea of a joint approach with the Danes and
Norwegians to Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey on
internationalizing the Bhutanese refugee issue (reftel),both
stated they would consult with their capitals, and expressed
continued interest in finding a durable solution for the
Bhutanese refugees.
Australia Likely To Resettle Refugees
--------------
2. (C) According to Ambassador Lade, Australia had wanted to
finalize its Bhutanese refugee policy in advance of the March
core group meeting in Geneva, but events elsewhere in the
world had prevented this. Ambassador Lade expected Canberra
to set policy on Bhutan soon, and noted it was likely that
Australia would be willing to accept a number of Bhutanese
refugees for resettlement as they tended to be well educated,
spoke good English, and were generally easier to settle than
other refugee groups. Even if Australia were unable to
participate in a joint meeting with Foreign Minister Pandey,
Ambassador Lade was confident that he could call on the
Foreign Minister individually to stress similar points, as
the GOA was increasingly convinced that internationalization
may be the best way forward. However, he noted that he was
still having difficulty getting Canberra to understand why
local integration of refugees was not the best option. He
stated that Former Prime Minister Deuba had told him that
Nepal would have to change its constitution to allow the
refugees to become citizens, and as it was unlikely that
would happen, he was urging Canberra to support third-country
resettlement of most of the refugees. He explained that he
expected Australia to become more engaged on the issue,
acknowledging that, while Australians had attended core group
meetings in the past, to date they had tended to take a back
seat.
Japan Wonders What "Internationalization" Means
-------------- --
3. (C) Ambassador Hiraoka questioned what
"internationalization" entailed. He could not recall an
example of a similar ad hoc conference and noted that,
depending on the forum, a different MOFA bureau in Tokyo
would be responsible for the issue. He wondered what Japan
would be asked to do, pointing out that it would be difficult
for Japan to accept refugees, and that he believed
resettlement countries generally bore the full expense of
resettling the refugees. The Ambassador responded that
accepting refugees for resettlement was only one way to help
the process, and noted there were other ways that Japan could
be helpful as the internationalization process evolved. The
Ambassador stressed the urgency of moving ahead as the
security situation surrounding the camps deteriorated.
Need To Involve India
--------------
4. (C) Ambassadors Lade and Hiraoka both commented that their
New Delhi Embassies had the lead on Bhutan. Ambassador
Hiraoka explained that the Japanese Embassy in New Delhi
"loved" Bhutan, and did not want to offend India by pressing
Bhutanese issues. Ambassador Lade noted similar sentiments
in the Australian Embassy in New Delhi. He pointed out that
Indian pressure on Bhutan was key, as Australia had little
leverage with Bhutan. He cautioned that the Australian
Embassy in New Delhi, and some in Canberra, did not want to
revisit the 1990-1991 expulsion of the refugees from Bhutan.
Ambassador Lade noted that, while the expulsion could not
have happened without the consent (and assistance) of India,
it would be difficult to now condemn India's role. However,
Ambassador Lade and the Ambassador agreed that the GOI had an
important role to play in guaranteeing that the Bhutanese did
not expel the remaining 125,000-plus ethnic Nepalese living
in Bhutan.
Comment
--------------
5. (C) There seems to be agreement among the diplomatic
community in Kathmandu that there is a need to
"internationalize" the Bhutanese refugee issue in order to
come up with a durable solution, although these discussions
indicate there is a need to develop a consensus on what
"internationalization" actually entails.
MORIARTY