US embassy cable - 03KATHMANDU330

C O N F I D E N T I A L KATHMANDU 000330 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR SA/INS 
LONDON FOR POL - RIEDEL 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/24/2013 
TAGS: PREL, NP, IN, India Relations 
SUBJECT: NEPAL/INDIA EXTRADITION TREATY NEGOTIATIONS FALTER 
OVER TREATMENT OF THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS 
 
 
Classified By: DCM ROBERT K. BOGGS.  REASON:  1.5 (B,D). 
 
1.  (SBU)  Extradition treaty negotiations between the 
Government of India (GOI) and the Government of Nepal (GON) 
ended inconclusively after five days on February 20.  This 
initial meeting, held in Kathmandu at the working level, was 
aimed at updating and revising the existing extradition 
treaty between the two countries.  Simultaneous talks on 
concluding a bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty ended 
on the same day.  The next round of talks on both treaties is 
not expected before April or May. 
 
2.  (C)  Dr. Madan Kumar Bhattarai, Joint Secretary for South 
Asia at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and leader of the GON 
negotiating team, cited GOI insistence on a new provision for 
the extradition of third country nationals as the most 
significant point of contention between the two countries. 
Committing explicitly to the extradition of third country 
nationals is politically problematic for Nepal, Bhattarai 
told the DCM.  The draft treaty the GON submitted for Indian 
consideration is "silent" on the question, Bhattarai said. 
By not specifically prohibiting the extradition of third 
country nationals, the GON draft "by implication covers" it, 
in his view.  The difference in the respective bilateral 
perspectives on this matter is not insurmountable, he 
believes, adding that he expects that a mutually acceptable 
compromise can be reached in due time. 
 
3.  (C) Executing a mutual legal assistance agreement will be 
more difficult, Bhattarai asserted, because the areas of 
disagreement are more numerous.  (Note:  Negotiations on the 
proposed mutual legal assistance agreement were conducted by 
Bhattarai's counterpart in the Home Ministry.  End note.) 
For example, the Indians insisted on reciprocal visits by the 
respective police forces to investigate crimes.  Under 
current conditions, Bhattarai said, such visits are frequent 
but take place informally.  Formal permission for Indian 
authorities to conduct their own investigations on Nepal's 
sovereign territory would be "politically sensitive," 
Bhattarai said.  The GOI has also asked for the exchange of 
judicial and criminal records, a request that the GON team 
must first vet with Nepal's Supreme Court.  Although the two 
countries are closer to agreeing (at least, in Bhattarai's 
estimation) on a draft extradition treaty, the GON does not 
wish to move ahead on one agreement without concomitant 
progress on the other.  In short, the GON sees "no point in 
hurrying" to conclude the treaties. 
 
4.  (C)  Comment:  In practice, both the GOI and GON often 
quietly turn over each other's nationals without engaging in 
formal extradition procedures.  The GOI has often accused the 
GON of harboring Pakistani extremists on its territory and 
has complained of GON inaction against alleged ISI activity 
within its borders--both of which charges the GON publicly 
denies.  The GON, whose foreign policy is predicated on 
cultivating good relations with all countries in the region, 
is unlikely to agree to language that it views as 
specifically targeting one of those neighbors.  Formally 
sanctioning Indian police activity on Nepali territory is, 
moreover, certain to rankle national sovereignty sentiments, 
ever sensitive to perceived interference from this giant 
neighbor.  The GOI's insistence on both points is certain to 
reinforce the GON view that there is indeed "no point in 
hurrying," despite the benefits to both countries of the 
bilateral agreements. 
MALINOWSKI