US embassy cable - 04KATHMANDU541

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KATHMANDU 000541 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NOFORN 
 
DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM/ANE 
LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY 
NSC FOR MILLARD 
GENEVA FOR PLYNCH 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/23/2014 
TAGS: PREF, PHUM, PREL, NP, BH, IN, Bhutanese Refugees 
SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEES: SOME HOPEFUL SIGNS OF PROGRESS 
 
REF: A. NEW DELHI 1642 
 
     B. JOYCE-PITOTTI-KAPLAN EMAILS OF 03/18-19 (NOTAL) 
     C. KATHMANDU 230 
     D. 03 KATHMANDU 2501 
 
Classified By: DCM Robert K. Boggs for reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
1. (C) Summary.  The GON has prepared a report on the 
December incident in Khudunabari Camp and will provide it to 
the RGOB in April.  A UNHCR official confided that the 
Government of India had requested information from UNHCR on 
conditions for return faced by the refugees and how these 
conditions would need to change to meet international 
standards.  The GON has not prohibited UNHCR from conducting 
a socio-economic survey, but is reluctant to move forward 
with any plans involving local integration of refugees. 
UNHCR will initiate the profiling exercise of the refugees as 
early as mid-May.  Refugee leaders are discussing the 
possibility of a visit to Bhutan, but have no plans to march 
to Bhutan as mentioned in Ref A.  The RGOB's demand for a 
full investigation into the December incident seems to be 
merely a ploy to delay the repatriation and verification 
process.  The GON report will likely differ insignificantly 
from accounts reported Ref C.  Perhaps the Department could 
suggest that the RGOB adopt confidence-building measures, 
such as permitting a small group of Khudunabari refugees to 
conduct a "pre-repatriation" visit to Southern Bhutan.  End 
Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
Status of GON Investigation into December Incident 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
2. (C)  At the request of the Royal Government of Bhutan 
(RGOB), the Government of Nepal (GON) has prepared a report 
on the December 22 incident in Khudunabari Camp in a good 
faith effort to restart the bilateral process.  Foreign 
Ministry Joint Secretary M.K. Bhattarai informed Poloff on 
March 23 that the report is based on accounts from GON 
officials present during the incident.  Bhattarai added that 
he prepared the report in such a way as to avoid embarrassing 
the RGOB and without apportioning blame to any party.  The 
findings will be forwarded to Foreign Minister B.B. Thapa 
upon his return from abroad o/a March 30, he said.  Bhattarai 
suggested that the GON would convey the report to the RGOB as 
soon as the first week of April. 
 
----------------------------------- 
GOI Requests Information from UNHCR 
----------------------------------- 
 
3. (C/NF) A UNHCR senior protection officer confided to 
Poloff on March 22 that UNHCR/Nepal recently responded to a 
request from the Government of India (GOI) for information on 
the Bhutanese refugees.  Specifically, the GOI asked UNHCR to 
detail the conditions for repatriation as outlined by the 
RGOB and how these conditions would need to change in order 
to meet international standards.  The UNHCR official 
indicated that the report was given recently to the GOI. 
According to the official, the report highlighted the many 
uncertainties faced by the refugees.  For example, in order 
to regain citizenship, the RGOB has indicated that Category 
II refugees must not say anything or do anything "against the 
King, the Government and the People of Bhutan," but has not 
clarified whether past behavior (e.g., from the 1990-1991 
demonstrations) or behavior only during the 2-year probation 
period will be taken into account.  The RGOB has also failed 
to address what will happen to Category II returnees who fail 
to regain citizenship.  The UNHCR official also asserted that 
the report emphasized that prior Bhutanese citizenship should 
not be the definitive condition on which the RGOB bases the 
right to return.  According to international standards, 
"habitual residence" in the country should be sufficient to 
qualify for repatriation, she said. 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
UNHCR: Planning for Socio-Economic Survey Continues 
While Profiling Exercise to Begin in May 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
4. (C) According to UNHCR/Nepal, UNHCR has neither formally 
requested nor been denied permission by the GON to conduct a 
socio-economic survey.  The purpose of the socio-economic 
survey is to identify differences between the camps and local 
Nepali communities regarding access to social services, such 
as education and health, with an eye to equalizing quality of 
services in anticipation of local integration of the 
refugees.  Informal conversations between the UNHCR and GON 
officials have indicated that the GON is reluctant to conduct 
the survey because of its implications for local integration, 
which the GON has not agreed formally to address at this 
time.  UNHCR will continue with planning the survey, however, 
and at some point will submit a proposal to the GON.  A UNHCR 
protection officer opined that the GON likely will not refuse 
to cooperate with the survey because of the potential 
benefits to local Nepalis. 
 
5. (SBU) UNHCR's profiling exercise is expected to begin 
sometime in May (Ref B).  According to a UNHCR protection 
officer, UNHCR/Nepal has requested a "profiling expert" from 
Geneva and anticipates that he/she will arrive in mid-April. 
UNHCR has also contracted the International Catholic 
Migration Commission (ICMC) to train and supervise a team of 
high school-graduate refugees to collect the profiling data. 
(Profiling data will include household size, names, ages, 
types of Bhutanese documentation, last address in Bhutan, 
education levels, work experience, languages, current 
earnings (if any), and real estate holding outside Bhutan.) 
UNHCR anticipates that the 8-person ICMC team will arrive in 
April, train the data collectors and begin work in the camps 
in May.  Data collection will require 2-3 weeks followed by 2 
weeks of data entry.  The profiling exercise could be 
complete by late June.  Using this information, UNHCR will 
initiate individual protection interviews to identify 
vulnerable groups that might benefit from resettlement abroad. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
No Decision by Refugees to March on Bhutan 
------------------------------------------ 
 
6. (C) Contrary to reports that the refugees are planning to 
march into Bhutan in April or May, refugee leader Ratan 
Gazmere informed PolOff that no decision has been made.  He 
added, however, that the refugee leaders have discussed the 
possibility of a "pre-repatriation" visit, for which they 
would request permission from the RGOB.  Gazmere suggested 
that one member from each family in Khudunabari Camp of 
Categories I and II would travel to Bhutan to visit their 
home district to alleviate some of their concerns and to 
witness for themselves whether they would be able to return 
to their own lands and property.  PolOff recommended that 
such a large group might intimidate the RGOB and that perhaps 
one or two representatives to travel to each of the six 
districts would be a more manageable and acceptable size. 
Gazmere confirmed that refugee leader Tek Nath Rizal is 
preparing to conduct an indefinite hunger strike, but has not 
decided on the date.  The two of them hope to travel to the 
upcoming UNCHR meeting in Geneva to raise awareness of the 
refugee issue with attendees and to press for a resolution on 
Bhutan, he said.  Rizal's hunger strike would occur only 
after his return to Nepal. 
 
-------- 
Comment 
-------- 
 
7. (C) By demanding a full investigation into the December 
incident -- which all first-hand observers except, perhaps, 
Bhutanese officials concur was a spontaneous reaction on the 
part of the refugees to very harsh and provocative statements 
by RGOB officials -- the RGOB appears to be trying to delay 
repatriation and forestall further verification of the 
remaining camps.  The GON report, based on government 
officials' eyewitness accounts, is unlikely to differ 
substantially from information received during meetings with 
UNHCR and GON officials in January (Ref C).  It is unclear 
whether the RGOB will persist in its initial insistence that 
the guilty (i.e., refugees, in the Bhutanese view) be 
punished as well.  A visit by a small group of Khudunabari 
Camp refugees to the six home districts in Southern Bhutan, 
approved by the RGOB, could go far to alleviate the 
uncertainties regarding repatriation faced by the refugees. 
Post recommends that the Department encourage the RGOB, as a 
sign of goodwill and to build confidence between the two 
parties, to allow a group of refugees to visit Bhutan. 
Firsthand exposure to conditions for return would help both 
to remove refugees' uncertainties regarding repatriation and 
to clarify the intentions of the Bhutanese government. 
However, such a visit would not necessarily reassure the 
refugees or pave the way for a mass repatriation.  End 
Comment. 
 
 
MALINOWSKI