BHUTANESE REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT - GOI TELLS A/S

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 004925

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/08/2017
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM NP BT IN
SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT - GOI TELLS A/S
SAUERBREY IT WILL WORK WITH USG BUT NOT IOM

Classified By: PolCouns Ted Osius for Reasons 1.4 (B,D)


1. (C) SUMMARY: Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Joint
Secretary for Bhutan and Nepal Preeti Saran and MEA Joint

SIPDIS
Secretary for Americas Gaitri Kumar told Assistant Secretary

SIPDIS
for Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) Ellen Sauerbrey
November 8 that the Government of India (GOI) was prepared to
assist the USG in any way possible with the resettlement of
Bhutanese refugees. However, the GOI would only work with
the U.S. Embassy on the issue, and would not work with the
International Organization for Migration (IOM),nor would it
allow the IOM to assist refugees in its airports. A/S
Sauerbrey explained the potential difficulties and numerous
logistical details involved in helping refugees transit
through an airport such as Indira Gandhi International
Airport in New Delhi. Kumar agreed to talk to the
appropriate Indian authorities to try to find a solution and
to test whether the GOI would accept a limited working
relationship with IOM. She warned, however, that the transit
of Bhutanese refugees through India could potentially be
delayed in the process of working out a solution. END
SUMMARY.

The IOM Would Not Be Welcome in Indian Airports
--------------


2. (C) Assistant Secretary for PRM Ellen Sauerbrey spoke
November 8 to MEA Joint Secretary for Bhutan and Nepal Preeti
Saran regarding the GOI's role in the transit of Bhutanese
refugees through Indian airports on their way to resettlement
in the United States. Saran stated that the presence of IOM
in Indian airports would not be welcome, and asked whether
the refugees could transit through another country. A/S
Sauerbrey pointed out that IOM had done a study to find the
most cost-effective and least onerous route through which the
refugees should transit, and determined that New Delhi was
the best option. Saran indicated that the refugee issue was
not in her mandate and that she was unfamiliar with the
position of the Ministry of Home Affairs on the issue, but
agreed to relay the concerns of the USG to the appropriate
authorities. "We will facilitate," she asserted, but added
the caveat that if it became "too complicated," perhaps the
USG should look into using another route. A/S Sauerbrey
thanked her for the GOI's offer to help, underlining that the
USG needed the GOI's assistance in giving the refugees as
smooth a transition as possible.

Indian Immigration and Aviation Officials Will Handle
Transiting Refugees Just Fine, Thank You
--------------


3. (C) MEA Joint Secretary for Americas Gaitri Kumar told
A/S Sauerbrey separately November 8 that the GOI was
interested in "being as helpful and courteous as possible to
the Bhutanese refugees and to (the U.S.) government." She
said that she had received a letter recently from IOM
detailing what the GOI would be asked to do to facilitate the
Bhutanese refugees. According to the IOM, tasks required
include: compiling a list of refugees, shepherding refugees
through the airport, providing the refugees with a packet of
food, ensuring refugees got to their departure gate, boarding
the refugees onto airplanes, and providing a passenger
manifest to the authorities. Kumar said that she had
approached the Bureau of Immigration and the Ministry of
Civil Aviation to ask them how the GOI would go about
performing these tasks. Their response was that food and
drink were readily available in the transit area, the
refugees would be issued boarding passes for their next
flight, and that the immigration authorities would bear the
responsibility for looking out for the refugees and would see
to it that they were properly facilitated in the airport. In
the event of a flight delay, the refugees would be given a
three-day pass allowing them to move about in India until
their flight departed. In case a refugee did not want to
leave the airport, the immigration authorities would "take
care of them," according to Kumar. Other than their lack of
passports for documentation, the refugees were "just like any

NEW DELHI 00004925 002 OF 003


other travelers," opined Kumar, adding that the authorities
of Indira Gandhi International Airport dealt with hundreds of
passengers such as this a daily basis. She added that
Indians spoke Hindi, which was similar to Nepali, suggesting
that the USG and the GOI needed to work out a simple
agreement at the ground level. "Culturally, it's not
difficult for the refugees to transit through New Delhi,
where they can speak Hindi or Nepalese," Kumar claimed.


4. (C) A/S Sauerbrey rebutted Kumar's argument with a
description of Bhutanese refugees, explaining that many of
them had been born and raised in refugee camps and that some
had never seen an airport or a toilet. She pointed out
approximately 70-100 refugees per flight - or 1,500 refugees
a month - would be passing through the airport, and that
there would be language problems and cultural issues with
which the Indian authorities would also have to contend.
Additionally, A/S Sauerbrey signaled that refugees leaving
the airport due to a delayed flight would be an issue of
major concern to the USG, contending that, overall,
transiting refugees would be an overwhelming burden for the
Indian airport and immigration authorities, and a security
nightmare for the Indian government.

The Crux of the Issue: India is Not a Member of the IOM
--------------


5. (C) Kumar insisted that there were several agencies on
high security alert in the airport, and therefore it was
difficult to allow a new organization to have access to the
airport's secure areas, especially over a period of five
years. Kumar acknowledged that the GOI was not a member of
the IOM, and that this was problematic. Kumar relayed that
her instructions were work with the U.S. Embassy and to do
anything to assist the USG with the transit of Bhutanese
refugees, giving courtesies to the U.S., Bhutan and Nepal.
However, she was not authorized to give any courtesy to the
IOM. "As long as it is not the IOM in my airport, my secure
area, my protocol, or my transit area, I don't have a
problem," she elucidated. Kumar raised the prospect of
working through the UN High Commission for Refugees as an
alternative to the IOM. A/S Sauerbrey informed her that the
USG was legally mandated to use only the IOM for processing
refugees.


6. (C) In the end, Kumar affirmed that she understood A/S
Sauerbrey's points, and agreed to speak to the proper Indian
authorities to try to work out a solution which would involve
the IOM. She made no promises, warning that she did not have
the authority to make a decision on the issue, but she
promised to try. "We have to work it out to keep from giving
the refugees one more hurdle," she observed.

Saran Raises Tibetan Refugees
--------------


7. (C) In a discussion on Tibetan refugees, Saran asked if
the USG had agreed to resettle Tibetan refugees in Nepal
also. A/S Sauerbrey responded that the USG had offered to
resettle 5,000 Tibetan refugees already, but that the
Government of Nepal had not approved their resettlement due
to pressure from China. Having just come from Nepal, A/S
Sauerbrey noted that Prime Minister Koirala had told her that
Tibetan refugees were free to cross into India and asked
Saran if India would provide exit permits and allow them to
be processed on its territory. Saran replied that the
Indo-Nepal border was open with free movement on both sides.
A/S Sauerbrey emphasized that, if there was a way to allow
Tibetan refugees to be resettled through India, the USG would
be happy to resettle them. Saran answered again that this
issue was not part of her mandate, but acknowledged that this
was a generous offer.

Comment: IOM Problematic for GOI
--------------


8. (C) We believe that Kumar will make a sincere attempt to

NEW DELHI 00004925 003 OF 003


convey USG concerns to the authorities, and that she will
fight the good fight in order to get the Indian government to
allow IOM involvement in the Bhutanese refugee resettlement
process. However, we are not convinced that her powers of
persuasion will succeed in moving the Indian government.
From the GOI point of view, IOM is the thin edge of the wedge
that would lead to international involvement in Sri Lankan,
Tibetan, Burmese and maybe Kashmiri refugees. Kumar may find
it especially difficult to persuade the Ministry of Home
Affairs to abandon its opposition to a role for IOM. The
solution might involve: a) using another transit point such
as Dubai or Bangkok; or b),accrediting a person or persons
with appropriate expertise in refugee management to the
Embassy in New Delhi during the period that Bhutanese
refugees will transit India. End Comment.


9. (U) A/S Sauerbrey did not clear this message prior to her
departure from New Delhi.
WHITE