US embassy cable - 03KATHMANDU2432

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KATHMANDU 002432 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM/ANE; LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY; NSC FOR 
MILLARD; GENEVA FOR PLYNCH 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/05/2013 
TAGS: PREF, PREL, PHUM, BH, NP, Bhutanese Refugees 
SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEES: FRIENDS OF BHUTAN VISIT TO 
THIMPU YIELDS FEW RESULTS 
 
REF: KATHMANDU 2385 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Michael E. Malinowski for reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
1. (C) During a recent visit to Kathmandu, the Swiss and 
Austrian Ambassadors resident in New Delhi reported on their 
visit December 1-3 to Thimpu.  The five-nation Friends of 
Bhutan demarched the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB), 
urging it to increase transparency in the repatriation 
process, to complete verification of the remaining camps as 
quickly as possible, and to allow for third-party monitoring. 
 The RGOB agreed that verification should be completed 
quickly and asserted that the Bhutanese Verification Team now 
in Khudunabari Camp will provide information to the refugees 
about repatriation.  The RGOB did not agree to third-party 
monitoring, however.  The Swiss and Austrian Ambassadors 
criticized UNHCR for withdrawing financial support for the 
Nepali Verification Team, suggesting that UNHCR was 
increasing the refugees' anxiety over repatriation.  The 
Austrian Ambassador suggested that the donor community must 
trust the RGOB to respect the human rights of the refugees. 
U.K. and EU representatives at the meeting questioned the 
RGOB's sincerity and noted a disconnect between its words and 
actions.  The "Friends" visit to Thimpu appears to have 
yielded few concrete results.  End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
FRIENDS OF BHUTAN DEMARCHE GOVERNMENT IN THIMPU 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
2. (SBU) On December 4, UNHCR Regional Director Jean-Marie 
Fakhouri briefed donors on his impressions from his visit to 
Nepal and on the direction UNHCR likely will move on the 
Bhutanese refugee question.  The content of Fakhouri's 
briefing was provided Reftel.  This cable is primarily meant 
to report on the December 1-3 visit to Thimpu of the "Friends 
of Bhutan."  Both Ambassador Walter Gyger of Switzerland and 
Ambassador Jutta Stefan-Bastl of Austria attended Fakhouri's 
briefing and provided a read-out of their visit.  (Note. 
These two Ambassadors are based in New Delhi but responsible 
for both Nepal and Bhutan. End Note.) 
 
3. (C) Gyger prefaced his remarks with the suggestion that 
the diplomatic missions in New Delhi and Kathmandu meet more 
often to discuss issues, particularly regarding the Bhutanese 
refugees.  He confirmed that both he and Ambassador 
Stefan-Bastl, along with a representative from Denmark, had 
just returned from a visit to Thimpu.  He noted that the 
governments of Norway and the Netherlands had given the 
delegation authority to speak on their behalf.  Gyger said 
that the Friends' demarche to the RGOB focused on four 
points, although he only elaborated three of those points. 
 
4. (C) First, the Friends urged the Royal Government of 
Bhutan (RGOB) to increase transparency in the repatriation 
process.  Gyger said that the refugees' anxieties over 
repatriation are understandable.  The RGOB gave assurances to 
the Friends that the Bhutanese Verification Team now in 
Khudunabari Camp is there not only to review Category III 
appeals, but also to inform the refugees of the conditions 
awaiting them inside Bhutan.  The RGOB also confirmed that 
repatriation forms will be distributed to Khudunabari Camp 
refugees after Category III appeals have been reviewed. 
(FYI: The review should be complete sometime in late 
January/early February.  End FYI) 
 
5. (C) Second, the Friends urged the RGOB to complete 
verification of all camps as quickly as possible.  Gyger 
agreed with Fakhouri that the refugees have been confined to 
the camps for far too long and this situation must be 
resolved soon.  According to Gyger, the RGOB concurred. 
6. (C) The third, and most sensitive point raised by the 
Friends, was the issue of third-party monitoring.  Gyger left 
Thimpu with the impression that the door to third-party 
oversight is now "a little open."  He said that instead of 
rejecting the suggestion outright, the RGOB said it "does not 
see a need (for third-party monitoring) now" but agreed to 
continue discussions on the issue.  According to Gyger, the 
Friends conveyed to the RGOB that they did not wish to 
pressure the government, "only to help and support movement 
forward."  Gyger asserted that the donors must accept that 
UNHCR is "not welcome" in Bhutan and recognize the progress 
made by the RGOB in allowing over 70 percent of the refugees 
to return.  Gyger then criticized UNHCR for withdrawing 
financial support from the Nepali Verification Team.  UNHCR 
should avoid increasing the anxiety of the refugees over 
whether to return to Bhutan, he added. 
 
7. (C) Austrian Ambassador Stefan-Bastl then commented that 
the Friends of Bhutan had agreed that verification and 
repatriation would be a bilateral process because "they felt 
that there was no other way to move forward."  She said that 
she has visited Thimpu three times in the past year and has 
witnessed a shift in the King's position vis-a-vis the 
refugees.  Stefan-Bastl expected UNHCR to be helpful, not 
critical, of the process.  She said they had no choice but to 
trust the RGOB to respect the refugees' human rights.  She 
also suggested there might be another possibility for 
third-party monitoring, but would not elaborate.  (Note: 
UNHCR External Affairs Director for Asia Milton Moreno 
afterwards told PolOff that he suspected the Austrian 
Ambassador was suggesting a possible role for the 
International Organization for Migration (IOM).  However, 
Moreno believed IOM was not a good candidate because of 
recent problems associated with IOM turning back 
asylum-seekers in Australia.  End Note.) 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
EU AND UK REPRESENTATIVES REACT WITH SKEPTICISM 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
8. (C) Gyger's remarks sparked immediate comment from both 
the U.K. and EU representatives at the meeting.  The U.K. 
representative noted that the RGOB has not ratified any 
international human rights conventions and has failed to 
allow for third-party monitoring of the refugees.  He 
highlighted the absence of any commitment in writing and 
strongly questioned the sincerity of the RGOB's verbal 
assurances.  Like Fakhouri, the U.K. representative also 
questioned whether the current bilateral process will provide 
a durable solution to the refugees. 
 
9. (C) Similarly, the EU Commission representative, who has 
visited Thimpu six times, opined that the RGOB is "very 
clever" and, through its red-carpet treatment, has always 
been very successful at convincing visitors of its good 
intentions while at the same time providing little 
follow-through in action.  He mentioned that he has worked on 
the refugee issue off and on for over six years and the RGOB 
has always kept the door "a little bit open," without ever 
opening it all the way.  He questioned the RGOB's sincerity 
in providing a durable and positive solution to the refugee 
issue.  The EU representative asked the Swiss Ambassador 
whether the RGOB had agreed to return the refugees to their 
home areas -- an issue of significant concern to the refugees 
-- and Gyger replied no.  Gyger added, however, that the RGOB 
has agreed to provide the refugees with jobs, free access to 
education and health services and temporary residency cards. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
10. (C) The Friends' visit to Thimpu appears to have yielded 
few results.  From the Ambassadors' comments, it also appears 
that the Friends have conceded an important point to the RGOB 
-- namely that the repatriation of the refugees is not an 
international, but bilateral process.  From their accounts, 
it does not appear that Bhutan's donors are willing to exert 
pressure on -- or use their leverage with -- the RGOB on 
accepting a third-party monitor and providing guarantees for 
the refugees.  According to Jean-Marie Fakhouri, this is the 
first time UNHCR has not been an active player in the 
verification and repatriation of a refugee population.   The 
implications of this for future UNHCR interventions around 
the world could be significant. 
 
11. (C) Comment Continued:  The critical question now is 
whether the current bilateral process will provide a just and 
durable solution for the Bhutanese refugees.  The RGOB has 
shown no willingness at this point to permit third-party 
monitoring, to return the refugees to their homes, or to 
guarantee citizenship to the majority of refugees.  By 
claiming that the majority of refugees left Bhutan 
voluntarily, the RGOB has effectively stripped them of their 
refugee status and created the risk of their becoming 
stateless persons after the camps are closed.  Although the 
RGOB has agreed verbally to provide returnees with jobs and 
access to social services, it has committed to nothing in 
writing.  Nor has the RGOB said whether the returnees will be 
free to choose a job commensurate with their education or 
whether they will be required to work as manual laborers in, 
for example, construction or hydropower plants.  According to 
our Bhutanese interlocutors, the RGOB continues to 
discriminate against ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan (reported 
septel).  It will be very important to discover whether the 
Bhutanese members of the JVT clarify these questions for the 
refugees.  Unless there are firm indications that officially 
sanctioned ethnic discrimination will not be applied to the 
repatriates, we may need to consider whether the USG can 
support the current bilateral process without third-party 
oversight.  End Comment. 
MALINOWSKI