US embassy cable - 05GENEVA909

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 GENEVA 000909 
 
SIPDIS 
 
USUN FOR MALY; BRUSSELS FOR MEZNAR 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/07/2010 
TAGS: PREF, NP, PHUM, BT, PREL, UNHCR 
SUBJECT: BHUTANESE REFUGEES PRESENT THEIR HISTORY AND 
CURRENT COMPLAINTS; UNHCR PLACES RESETTLEMENT ON THE TABLE 
 
 
Classified By: RMA Piper Campbell reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
1. (SBU) Summary.  At a private meeting on the margins of the 
UN Commission on Human Rights, the Bhutanese refugee 
delegation presented a video explaining the facts of their 
flight and situation in Nepal, and drawing governmental 
attention to their desire for durable solutions.  Missionoff 
persuaded NGO participants not to promote abandonment of 
bilateral discussions, but to press the Government of Nepal 
to approve commencement of refugee re-registration, essential 
to any durable solution.  Discussion drew attention to 
reductions in UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 
assistance to the refugees.  At the UNHCR Working Group on 
Resettlement (WGR) the day before, UNHCR presented the 
argument for commencing a resettlement program now.  End 
Summary. 
 
2. (U)  Bhutanese refugees attending the current session of 
the UN Commission on Human Rights invited Mission to a 
private meeting held April 6, attended by reps from the 
Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, and Ireland as well as UNHCR 
(Asia Bureau Sr. Protection Officer Peter Janssen), the 
Nepalese Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, 
Lutheran World Federation, and the Habitat International 
Housing and Land Rights Network.  The refugees' 
representatives, Mr. Ratan Gazmere (also on the delegation to 
UNHCR Executive Committee meeting in October 2004), Mr. Til 
Bahadur Gurung, and Ms. Sushma Chhetri have produced a video 
on the history of the Bhutanese refugees.  It made multiple 
references to USG human rights reports and activities in 
support of their rights.  The video concluded that progress 
toward finding durable solutions for refugees ground to a 
halt in 2004. 
 
UNHCR Assistance Described as Forcing Local Integration 
 
3. (U) Gazmere described the issues from the refugee point of 
view.  It is time, he said, to explore alternatives other 
than the repatriation they have always desired - which we 
took as an implicit, and growing, interest in third-country 
resettlement.  Refugees feel that they are being "forcibly 
locally integrated" by virtue of former HC Lubbers' 
determination that UNHCR assistance to Bhutanese refugees 
would be phased out.  They see cuts to assistance in Nepal 
this year as directly connected to that policy. 
 
4. (C) Missionoff Lynch told the refugees that UNHCR has 
stated that it no longer has a phase-out policy and that the 
USG is strongly supportive of UNHCR providing assistance to 
refugees at international standards.  Internal communications 
received April 7, however, from UNHCR gives some credence to 
the refugees' claims that UNHCR is trying to work itself away 
from current assistance levels. 
 
Durable Solutions:  the Crux of the Matter 
 
5. (U) The refugees and LWF suggested that, given former HC 
Lubbers' 2003 statement that UNHCR would stop pursuing 
repatriation, and the King of Bhutan's statement in New Delhi 
in January that "none of the refugees are really Bhutanese" 
(sic), the time may have come to abandon hope for 
repatriation and focus solely on "other" durable solutions 
(given the aversion to local integration noted above, this 
would leave third country resettlement as the sole option). 
Missionoff noted that the USG had not abandoned hope of 
progress on repatriation, and still felt strongly that it was 
an option that refugees deserved to be offered.  She noted, 
however, that there is a parallel acknowledgment that 
refugees also deserve not to be left in limbo for decades. 
Lynch encouraged LWF and the refugees to press the Government 
of Nepal, as the USG is doing, to allow the refugee 
re-registration to begin, stressing that it is the basis for 
all of the durable solutions.  Missionoff said there is no 
need to cut off the possibility of repatriation in order to 
move forward on the prerequisites for resettlement. 
 
6. (C) In the general discussion of USG efforts in 2004, 
UNHCR (Janssen) pointed out that the very fruitful dialog 
between the EU (sic - the dialog was with the European 
Commission, and did not include member states) and the U.S. 
had been abandoned by the EU "for unknown reasons".  EU 
Member States present took note of the comment.  Janssen 
added that Bhutan opposes resettlement because it fears 
having its human rights record exposed by a refugee diaspora, 
and suggested that fact should be used as leverage  -- he 
suggested that movement on refugee resettlement could prompt 
Bhutan to move on repatriation. 
 
WGR Discussion on Resettlement of Bhutanese Refugees 
 
7. (SBU) Janssen had aired variations on these themes the 
previous day to members of the WGR.  Nepal seemed to have 
fallen off member countries' radars even though the new 
government was showing a new openness to solutions.  He said 
the new government seemed more conscious that the status quo 
was unstable and unsustainable. Indications of a new openness 
hadn't translated yet into anything concrete, but the 
Nepalese seem to have begun to understand that 
re-registration and Project Profile are linked not just to 
local integration but also third-country resettlement. At the 
same time, Janssen said both the international and bilateral 
processes had stalled. He therefore pressed members to 
provide more concrete numbers of how many persons from Nepal 
they can resettle, as more concrete numbers might help the 
GON understand that repatriation can be a solution for a 
significant number of refugees. 
 
8. (SBU) The Chair turned to members, asking whether 
resettlement countries could indicate a willingness to 
participate in the proposed resettlement program.  The 
representative from Canada broke the silence, saying that he 
could not commit to a resettlement program on the spot or 
change his government's official position -- which calls for 
a comprehensive solution of return, resettlement and local 
integration.  Nevertheless, he said he was not unwilling to 
reconsider the plan of action if necessary.  Refugee 
Counselor reviewed U.S. efforts, including high-level visits 
to the region.  She agreed the status quo was untenable.  The 
U.S. was not ready to commit to resettling a certain number 
but was very ready to participate in further discussion.  We 
had made clear to Nepal our readiness to be involved and the 
importance of registration as a first step.  No 
representative offered or promised a concrete number.  There 
was no open disagreement to the Chair's suggestion that 
members hold a special session to discuss this issue further. 
Janssen urged further consideration of solving the cases 
which could be solved and not insisting first and only on the 
comprehensive approach. 
 
COMMENT 
 
9. (C) Current Mission staff have followed the pursuit of 
durable solutions for Bhutanese refugees for close to three 
years, and share UNHCR's and the refugees' frustration that 
things are again stalled.  The Maoist insurgency is an 
increasing threat to a successful pursuit of durable 
solutions as it may threaten access to refugees for 
resettlement interviews.  In addition, refugees without hopes 
for alternative solutions seem more likely to be vulnerable 
to the Maoists' persuasion, which in the end could render 
them ineligible for U.S. resettlement.  The keys to forward 
movement are first and foremost the government of Nepal 
approving refugee re-registration, and second, but 
importantly for the principle of non-impunity, the Bhutanese 
accepting the return at least of the small number of refugees 
that it recognizes as Bhutanese citizens.  End Comment. 
 
 
Moley