GOU BLASTS UNHCR AND OSCE FOR THEIR CONCERN WITH

C O N F I D E N T I A L TASHKENT 000430 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR SCA/CEN, PRM AND DRL E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/02/2016 TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL PGOV UZ SUBJECT: GOU BLASTS UNHCR AND OSCE FOR THEIR CONCERN WITH UZBEKS DEPORTED FROM UKRAINE REF: KIEV 797 AND PREVIOUS Classified By: AMB. JON R. PURNELL, FOR REASONS 1.4 (B, D). ¶1. (C) Summary: Uzbekistan has accused the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) of needlessly politicizing the deportation of ten Uzbeks from Ukraine. The MFA has summoned the OSCE Ambassador in Tashkent to protest the OSCE Chairman-in-Office's statement on the returnees. The GOU claims that the principle of non-refoulement does not apply because the individuals were believed to pose a security threat. End summary. ¶2. (C) OSCE Ambassador and head of office Miroslav Jenca told the Ambassador that the MFA called him in to protest the OSCE Chairman-In-Office's February 17 statement expressing consternation at Ukraine's decision to return the asylum seekers. The MFA official stated that the OSCE works by consensus, and that the GOU was not consulted prior to the statement's release. Jenca also told the Ambassador that the OSCE Chairman-In-Office, Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht, was planning to visit Uzbekistan on April 1, and that GOU anger over the statement could impact the visit. Jenca also confided that he is increasingly discouraged about future prospects for the OSCE office's mandate. ¶3. (C) UNHCR Deputy Country Representative Asako Nozawa told poloff that the Uzbek UN Mission in Geneva had delivered a diplomatic note on February 21 condemning UNHCR concern with the Uzbeks deported from Ukraine. (Note: The GOU's note was in response to a February 17 UNHCR press release asking for access to the deported asylum-seekers. End note.) The note stated that UNHCR activities are required to be non-political, and to avoid interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. It accused UNHCR of interpreting international legal provisions in a one-sided way, and artificially politicizing the issue. The note also stated that the principle of non-refoulement does not apply to refugees where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they pose a security threat. It stated that UNHCR's concern over the fate of the Uzbek nationals was groundless, and that their rights were fully guaranteed in accordance with national legislation and international human rights standards. ¶4. (C) Also on February 17, UNHCR,s Tashkent office delivered a note verbale to the MFA expressing concern over the safety of the deportees and requesting access. While delivering the note verbale, UNHCR country mission chief Abdul Karim Ghoul told the Uzbek MFA that the extraditions from Ukraine violated the 1951 Convention on Refugees. Ghoul noted that the GOU's international human rights obligations required it to permit access to the detainees, and that allowing access would "serve to protect Uzbekistan's international image." Ilhom Zakirov, Chief of the MFA's International Organizations Department, responded only that the Ukrainian court had denied refugee status to the group. (Note: We are still waiting for a response to our own February 21 diplomatic note requesting information about the status of the returnees. End note.) ¶5. (C) In a meeting on February 22, the Ukrainian Defense Attache told DATT that the Uzbeks were deported because they were "illegal aliens," rather than as a result of any Uzbek request. The official added that the Uzbeks had previously been living in Russia, and had no connection to Andijon. ¶6. (C) Comment: The GOU's condemnation of UNHCR is consistent with its previous statements about UNHCR's operations in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan following the May 2005 Andijon unrest. The GOU is still bitter over UNHCR's role in helping evacuate over 400 Uzbeks from Kyrgyzstan to Romania. The GOU's attack on the OSCE does not augur well for the extension of the Tashkent office's mandate. PURNELL