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