DONOR COUNTRIES COALESCE ON BHUTANESE REFUGEE

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001301

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPT FOR PRM/ANE (L BARTLETT)

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL BT IN NP NL
SUBJECT: DONOR COUNTRIES COALESCE ON BHUTANESE REFUGEE
STRATEGY



1. (U) SUMMARY: On June 1, 2006, seven members of the Core
Group on Bhutanese Refugees, the UNHCR and the European
Commission met in The Hague to set a near-term strategy to
break the impasse in resolving the 16-year-old Bhutan refugee
problem. Representatives agreed to lobby both Nepal (to take
the initial steps of registering camp residents and allowing
the most vulnerable cases to resettle to third countries) and
Bhutan (to make good on the pledge to enable the voluntary
return of Category One and Four refugees to Bhutan).
Participants asked the USG to give India a read-out of the
results of the meeting and supported USG plans to provide a
joint briefing to Nepal, Bhutan, and India in New York in
July. Additional strategies were also discussed, including a
special envoy, linking development aid to progress on
resolution of the refugee problem, and resettlement of
Bhutanese refugees in third countries. END SUMMARY.


2. (U) The Netherlands hosted a meeting on June 1, 2006, of
members of the Core Group on Bhutanese Refugees to discuss
the current impasse in resolving the Bhutan refugee issue.
In addition to the Netherlands, representatives from
Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland,
the United States, and UNHCR attended. The European
Commission, though not a Core Group member, also
participated. PRM/ANE Deputy Director Lawrence Bartlett and
poloff represented the United States.

RESETTLE REFUGEES BUT DO NOT LINK DEVELOPMENT AID TO PROGRESS
-------------- --------------


3. (SBU) Core Group members shared information on their
ability to accept Bhutanese refugees for voluntary
resettlement in their countries. The USG and Canadian
offers, 50,000 and 5,000 respectively - each over a
multi-year period - far outstrip those of all other members
combined, who offered to absorb refugees in the hundreds. In
discussing the immediate needs of extremely vulnerable
refugees, who may have been subjected to violence or are
single female-headed families, most countries agreed their
resettlement programs could accept refugees immediately. The
USG, Canada, and UNHCR shared their recent unsuccessful
experiences in trying to get 16 urgent cases out of Nepal as
evidence that firm resettlement offers to a small group of
refugees have not been sufficient to persuade the Nepalese
government to issue exit permits. The USG noted the urgency
of using resettlement as a tool in negotiations, since Maoist
influence in the camps, should it increase, might prevent
refugees from passing security screening required for third
country resettlement.


4. (U) Members also shared information on their development
budgets in Nepal and Bhutan, with all noting an unwillingness
to withhold or decrease development program funding to either
country to leverage a resolution of the refugee issue.
Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, and the European Commission all
suggested using assistance as a carrot to encourage the two
parties to resolve the situation satisfactorily.

FIRST STEPS FIRST, THEN PUSH FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION
-------------- --------------


5. (SBU) Denmark opened discussion on the way forward by
asking that a comprehensive solution be orchestrated to
resolve the status of the over 100,000 refugees before
pushing for immediate action by either Nepal or Bhutan. The
USG, supported by Canada, pushed back, noting that getting
Nepal and Bhutan to take smaller, first steps might better
pave the way for an eventual comprehensive solution: Nepal
should allow a smaller number of extremely vulnerable
refugees (up to the 7,500 UNHCR had previously identified) to
resettle to third countries and should allow UNHCR to
register camp residents (or conduct a "census" of the camp
population) to ascertain population numbers and the interest
of refugees in returning to Bhutan; Bhutan must make good on
its promise to allow Categories One and Four refugees from
Khundunabari Camp to voluntarily return to Bhutan after
offering detailed information about the terms and conditions
that would face returning refugees and commencing a voluntary
return program.


6. (SBU) Other countries, eventually including Denmark,
agreed to this approach. Australia reiterated an agreement
made at the previous meeting that Core Group countries
demarche Nepal and Bhutan with a common message, emphasizing
that these initial steps begin immediately and detailing how

Core Group countries might assist. The USG plans to again
deliver its message in advance of the planned July 14
briefing with Nepal, Bhutan, and India (see para 9) and will
ask that other countries do the same.


7. (SBU) The Netherlands raised the issue of appointing a
special envoy to facilitate communication between Core Group
countries and Nepal and Bhutan. Core Group members expressed
only mild interest in the suggestion, noting that the mandate
of the position would first need to be known before they
could confirm interest. The USG noted we would consider the
value of such a position. The Netherlands agreed to draft a
short job description for others to consider at the June
22-23, 2006, Annual Tripartite Consultation (ATC) meeting in
Geneva. Members did not raise any possible candidates for
such a position.

MAKING INDIA A FULL PARTNER, FOLLOWING UP WITH NEPAL, BHUTAN
-------------- --------------


8. (SBU) Canada suggested that the USG, as the most
influential Core Group member, brief India on the outcomes of
the Hague meeting and invite them to become a full partner of
the group. All participants agreed. Members suggested that
the USG provide this briefing in Delhi and report back at the
June ATC meeting. The Department will convey points to
Embassy Delhi via septel.


9. (SBU) The USG tabled a proposal to conduct a joint meeting
with Nepal, Bhutan, India and a small group of Core Group
countries in New York in July. The purpose of the meeting
would be to receive information from both Nepal and Bhutan on
their bi-lateral process and reiterate USG and Core Group
interest in both countries taking the first steps noted above
in advance of a more comprehensive solution. The date of
this briefing, if accepted by invitees, is tentatively set
for July 14. Participants agreed to the USG initiative and
asked that only two Core Group members join the USG in the
meeting, in part to deliver a united message but not
overwhelm Nepal and India with a larger group. The USG
offered to share talking points for the meeting with Core
Group members and feed their points, if acceptable, into the
meeting. The USG would envision following up in the region
with additional demarches from Kathmandu and Delhi and is
considering a mission to the region by PRM Assistant
Secretary Sauerbrey.

SIPDIS
ARNALL