NEPAL: MFA CONFIRMS NO CHANGE IN POLICY ON TIBETAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L KATHMANDU 000145 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR PRM, SCA/INS, DRL AND G; GENEVA FOR RMA E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/01/2018 TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL CH NP SUBJECT: NEPAL: MFA CONFIRMS NO CHANGE IN POLICY ON TIBETAN REFUGEES REF: KATHMANDU 123 Classified By: Ambassador Nancy J. Powell. Reasons 1.4 (b/d) Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) The Under Secretary for UN Affairs at the Foreign Ministry confirmed to the Political/Economic Chief February 1 that the Government of NEPAL has not changed its policy on Tibetan refugees. The reported threat in mid-January by Nepali officials of refoulement to China for 19 refugees (reftel) was a local act. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Assistant Protection Officer Amit Sen told the Acting Refugee Coordinator February 1 that his office had raised the case with the Home Ministry's Immigration Department. Given the potential of Nepali retaliation, however, UNHCR intended to wait until the group of refugees reached India before raising the matter at a higher level. Gentleman's Agreement on Tibetans Still Stands -------------- - ¶2. (C) On February 1, in response to an expression of concern that Nepali police had arrested 19 Tibetan refugees near Namche (near Mt. Everest) in mid-January and threatened them with refoulement (reftel),Rudra Nepal, the Under Secretary for UN Affairs at the Foreign Ministry, insisted to the Political/Economic Chief that Nepal's policy remained unchanged. The Government of NEPAL (GON) stood by its gentleman's agreement to allow Tibetan refugees to transit Nepal on their way to India. The reported threat against the 19 had been a local act, he said. He admitted, however, that the GON was under considerable pressure from its powerful neighbor, the People's Republic of China (PRC),on the Tibetan issue. UNHCR Taking A Low-Key Approach ... For Now -------------- ¶3. (SBU) UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Assistant Protection Officer Amit Sen informed the Acting Refugee Coordinator February 1 that UNHCR staff had discussed the Tibetan case with the head of the National Unit for Coordination of Refugee Affairs, Mod Raj Dotel, several times and were meeting later the same day with the head of the Home Ministry's Immigration Department. Sen added, however, that UNHCR did not plan to file a formal complaint at a higher level about the near refoulement until the group had left Nepal for India. The concern was that the GON might retaliate by hindering the group's departure or by holding up all Tibetan refugee departures (as had happened once before). Sen explained that Dotel had given varied and conflicting answers when challenged about the incident. Instead of acknowledging the mistake, he seemed to be more interested in justifying the police action, even alleging at one point that the group had returned to the PRC, so there was nothing the GON could do. Comment -------------- ¶4. (C) The Nepali Government's reaction to this recent case of near refoulement is troubling, particularly the responses of the Home Ministry office responsible for refugee affairs. Post will urge the UNHCR to continue to follow up and to raise the issue with GON officials. China is no doubt putting pressure on the GON to keep Tibetan refugee arrivals in NEPAL down, but it too would seem to have little to gain from a public relations disaster on the Nepali-Tibetan border as the Beijing Olympics approach. POWELL