AMBASSADOR DISCUSSES BHUTANESE REFUGEES WITH

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