US embassy cable - 03RANGOON161

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 RANGOON 000161 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP AND PRM 
CDR USPACOM FOR FPA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/04/2013 
TAGS: PREF, BG, BM, Human Rights 
SUBJECT: UNHCR TO CLOSE IN BANGLADESH 
 
REF: DHAKA 190 
 
Classified By: COM Carmen Martinez, Reason: 1.5 (d). 
 
1. (C) Summary: UNHCR tells us it plans to close down its 
refugee operations in Bangladesh at the end of 2003.  In 
2004, it will look at the possibility of closing its 
operations in Burma's northern Rakhine State.  Whatever the 
merits of the decision in Bangladesh, in Burma, premature 
closure of UNHCR's operations will raise the risks of a new 
refugee crisis.  End Summary. 
 
2. (C) Hitoshi Mise, the Deputy Director for UNHCR's Asia 
Division told diplomats on February 4 that UNHCR would end 
support for refugee repatriation from Bangladesh on June 30, 
2003 and close down UNHCR's operations in Bangladesh entirely 
at the end of 2003.  It would review UNHCR's operations in 
Burma in 2004 and make a decision then whether to close there 
as well, probably at the end of 2004. 
 
3. (C) Mise said that this decision had been coming for some 
time.  UNHCR's operations in Bangladesh and Burma were among 
the most UNHCR's protracted.  Moreover, most refugees have 
already been repatriated.  Of the 250,000 refugees that left 
Burma for Bangladesh in the early 1990s, 230,000 have already 
returned.  Only 22,000 remain in Bangladesh and while 
approximately 1,000 were still returning each year, that was 
less than annual camp births and not enough to reduce the 
refugee population.  Of the remaining refugees, only about 
7,000 had been cleared by Burma for repatriation, but, even 
among those, not all were ready to return.  Some had 
protection problems; others had a variety of family or 
economic reasons for refusing repatriation. 
 
4. (C) In any case, UNHCR had tried to work out arrangements 
to allow the remaining refugees to establish a new 
"self-sustaining capacity" in Bangladesh, pending 
repatriation to Burma.  They had presented this plan to 
Bangladesh's Foreign Secretary in January, but, since the 
plan involved refugees working within the local economy, the 
Foreign Secretary rejected the program as a cover for local 
resettlement of the refugees.  This left UNHCR with few 
options, according to Mise.  Hence the decision to close the 
camps. 
 
5. (C) Mise emphasized that at least the June 30 deadline was 
not hard and fast.  If refugees wanted to return to Burma 
after that date, UNHCR would most likely provide some 
assistance.  It had also opened a dialogue with other UN 
agencies to ensure there was support for the refugees who 
remained behind in Bangladesh after December 31, 2003. 
 
6. (C) Mise also said that he believed that the Government of 
Bangladesh was looking for a way to put the refugee problem 
behind them.  Burmese contacts had told him that the 
Bangladeshis had scarcely raised the refugee issue during 
Than Shwe's December visit.  Bangladesh's State Minister for 
Foreign Affairs had also told him unofficially that 
Bangladesh could not grant the remaining refugees asylum, for 
fear of becoming a target country for other refugees, but was 
looking for another way out -- "a discreet solution to the 
problem."   In that context, UNHCR's approach, by taking the 
burden of decision off the Bangladeshis, could work. 
 
Comment 
 
7. (C) UNHCR may be right in this case.  We have heard the 
same comments from Burmese sources about fading Bangladesh 
government interest in the refugee question.  Nevertheless, 
the BDG does need a way out and UNHCR, by acting 
unilaterally, may allow the BDG to avoid responsibility for 
the decision while still accepting the fait accompli. 
 
8. (C) That said, there may be problems.  According to 
UNHCR's Resident Representative in Rangoon, there are 
probably 3,000 to 5,000 refugees still in camps in Bangladesh 
that have legitimate protection problems and a legitimate 
fear of political persecution, should they return to Burma. 
What happens to those individuals if they find themselves 
unable to support themselves in Bangladesh?  Secondly, the 
entire Rohingya Muslim community in Northern Rakhine State 
remains under intense military, political, and social 
pressure.  UNHCR, through its protection services, has been 
able to deflect some of these pressures.  However, there is 
really no one to replace UNHCR, if it pulls out.  Efforts to 
establish development programs in northern Rakhine State 
under the auspices of other UN agencies (e.g., through the 
Basic Needs Assessment Program in 2000 and 2001) have made 
little progress.  More importantly, however, UNHCR is the 
only UN agency that has maintained a consistent focus on 
human rights in its operations.  All others have shied from 
the issue.  Its exit, consequently, may leave the Rohingya 
Muslim population unprotected and raise the risks of a new 
exodus.  That does not necessarily have to be the result, but 
Post strongly suggests the USG discuss with the United 
Nations and other interested parties alternate protection 
arrangements that could substitute for UNHCR's operations in 
northern Rakhine State.  End Comment. 
 
9. (U) This cable was coordinated with Embassy Dhaka. 
Martinez