DONOR COUNTRIES COALESCE ON BHUTANESE REFUGEE

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001303

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.
ARNALL