INDIANS THINKING OF PRESSURING BHUTAN ON REFUGEES

C O N F I D E N T I A L KATHMANDU 000950

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR SCA/INS, PRM

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/12/2016
TAGS: PREF PGOV PREL PHUM NP
SUBJECT: INDIANS THINKING OF PRESSURING BHUTAN ON REFUGEES

REF: A. KATHMANDU 391


B. KATHMANDU 745

C. KATHMANDU 894

Classified By: Ambassador James F. Moriarty. Reasons 1.4 (b/d).

Summary
--------------


1. (C) On April 7, the Ambassador met separately with his
Indian and Australian counterparts and United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Resident Representative
Abraham Abraham to discuss Bhutanese refugee issues.
Cognizant of His Majesty's Government of Nepal's (HMGN) fear
that Bhutan could expel ethnic Nepali refugees in the future,
Indian Ambassador Shiv Mukherjee acknowledged to the
Ambassador that it would be good if India could pressure
Bhutan to take back a "token number" of refugees. Australian
Ambassador Graeme Lade told the Ambassador that his
government was still formulating a policy on Bhutanese
refugees, but noted that Canberra also wanted to ensure that
Bhutan would not expel ethnic Nepalis in the future. The
Ambassador shared this concern, and explained that was why
internationalization would likely have to involve some sort
of condemnation of Bhutan's past actions. Abraham reiterated
that UNHCR was prepared to assist countries supporting
internationalization of the Bhutanese refugee issue. He
opined that it would be better for member countries to ask
UNHCR to host an international conference on Bhutanese
refugees, rather than simply relying on UNHCR to drive the
issue. End Summary.

India: Token Returnees Could Reassure Nepal
--------------


2. (C) Indian Ambassador Shiv Mukherjee stated that Indian
officials in New Delhi would discuss Bhutanese refugee issues
with the Nepali Ambassador to India, Karna Adhikari, the week
of April 10. He noted that Bhutan was spinning the notion
that Nepal did not want to act, as HMGN was not proceeding
with UNHCR's registration process and had rejected Bhutan's
latest offer to discuss the issue with Foreign Minister
Pandey in Thimpu. However, Mukherjee acknowledged that it
was hard to deny that the Bhutanese goal was to take back no
refugees. He noted the international community's growing
acceptance of the idea that the issue needed to be
internationalized. Mukherjee accepted Nepal's concern over
future expulsion by Bhutan of remaining ethnic Nepalese. He
commented that it would be good for Bhutan to take back a
token 100 refugees to quiet this fear. He promised to urge
New Delhi to push Bhutan to repatriate at least a few
refugees. The Ambassador welcomed the effort, noting that
third-country resettlement could move quickly if the
international community did not need to reach a consensus to
condemn Bhutan and Nepal was satisfied that Bhutan had
admitted it had done wrong in the past. However, the
Ambassador cautioned that this should not be used as yet
another delaying tactic by Bhutan.

Australia Still Formulating Policy
--------------


3. (C) Australian Ambassador Graeme Lade told the Ambassador
that his government was still formulating its policy on
Bhutanese refugees. Lade noted that some in Australia
believed that HMGN should do more. He asked the Ambassador
whether the reason HMGN had not moved on refugees amounted to
maliciousness or incompetence. The Ambassador agreed that
HMGN should allow urgent resettlement of vulnerable refugees
and should allow UNHCR to register refugees. He added that
the frequent change in governments in Nepal, and the ability
of Bhutan to work the egos of each successive foreign
minister, led him to believe HMGN incompetence was the issue.
Lade remarked that Abraham seemed to believe that HMGN was
using vulnerable refugees as hostage, and that there was now
little hope of beginning a gradual approach to resettlement
with the most vulnerable cases. The Ambassador agreed,
noting his disappointment. Lade commented that many in
Australia considered India "duplicitous," as India had
allowed the refugees to transit to Nepal in 1990. The
Ambassador expressed optimism that India could play a
constructive role in pushing internationalization. While
pointing out that India was aware of the impossibility of
keeping people in camps indefinitely, the Ambassador
acknowledged that India was reluctant to push Bhutan. Lade
stated that Canberra was also concerned about the ethnic
Nepalis still in Bhutan. The Ambassador shared the concern,
and explained that was why internationalization would have to
involve some sort of measure to ensure that Bhutan did not
expel more people.

UNHCR: Countries Should Drive Issue
--------------


4. (C) UNHCR Resident Representative Abraham Abraham stressed
that his organization was prepared to assist countries
supporting internationalization of the Bhutanese refugee
issue. He opined that it would be better for member
countries to lobby UNHCR to hold an international conference
on Bhutanese refugees, rather than simply relying on UNHCR
itself to drive the issue. He stated that Erika Feller,
UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, planned to
visit Nepal on April 21-25 and would urge Foreign Minister
Pandey to move toward internationalization. Abraham worried
that if the international condemnation was too harsh or too
public, then Bhutan might dig in. The Ambassador countered
that there was little Bhutan could do other than not take
back any refugees, which was the same policy it had followed
successfully for sixteen years. Abraham noted that some
refugees might not understand what third-country resettlement
entailed because UNHCR could not educate people without
raising refugee expectations and the ire of HMGN.

Comment
--------------


5. (C) Ensuring that Bhutan does not expel ethnic Nepalis
still in Bhutan remains a key issue in resolving the
Bhutanese refugee issue.
MORIARTY