US embassy cable - 03KATHMANDU998

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 000998 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR SA, SA/INS, DRL - A/S CRANER, AND PRM 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/30/2015 
TAGS: Tibetan Refugees 
SUBJECT: NEPAL DEPORTS TIBETAN DETAINEES 
 
REF: A. KATHMANDU 0997 AND PREVIOUS 
 
     B. STATE 144931 
     C. KATHMANDU 0991 
 
Classified By: CDA ROBERT K. BOGGS.  REASON:  1.5 (B,D). 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
-------- 
 
1.  (SBU) In the early morning hours of May 31, Nepali 
authorities handed over 18 Tibetan detainees (including 8 
minors) to representatives of the Chinese Embassy for 
deportation.  As of 0915 local time, the Chinese Embassy 
vehicle containing the 18 was reported heading toward the 
Chinese border with a police escort.  UNHCR was denied access 
to the detainees and to police officials.  Embassy efforts to 
contact high-ranking officials at the Home Ministry and at 
the police to avert the deportation proved fruitless.  At the 
earliest possible opportunity, the Embassy will register with 
the Government of Nepal (GON) our protest at its violation of 
international norms and practices.  End summary. 
 
---------------------- 
AFTER-HOURS PAPERWORK 
---------------------- 
 
2.  (SBU)  At about 6:00 p.m. local time on May 30, a white 
van with a license plate identifying it as belonging to the 
Chinese Embassy appeared at Hanuman Dhoka Jail, where 18 
Tibetan detainees (including 8 minors) had been moved the 
previous day.  According to reports from the Office of Tibet, 
two Chinese Embassy representatives emerged and went inside. 
The Office of Tibet notified UNHCR, which sent two protection 
officers to the jail.  The officers requested, but were 
denied, access to the detainees and to police authorities. 
The officers remained at the jail until about 9:00 p.m., 
leaving after the Chinese Embassy representatives left.  The 
UNHCR officers were advised to contact the Superintendent of 
Police after 10:00 a.m. the following (Saturday) morning. 
Wangchuk Tsering, from the Office of Tibet and the 
representative of the Dalai Lama in Nepal, said he understood 
a CNN news crew attempting to cover the story also was barred 
from entering Hanuman Dhoka on the night of May 30.  Poloff 
attempted to reach Home Ministry officials, including the 
Home Secretary, at both their homes and offices for several 
hours that night to no avail. 
 
---------------------------- 
AND EARLY-MORNING DEPARTURE 
---------------------------- 
 
3.  (SBU)  At about 6:00 a.m. local time on May 31, Office of 
Tibet Representative Wangchuk Tsering reported that the 
Chinese Embassy van had reappeared at Hanuman Dhoka, along 
with a second Chinese Embassy vehicle.  (Note:  Saturdays in 
Nepal are like what Sundays in the U.S. used to be like, with 
all government offices and most retail businesses closed. 
End note.)  Tsering said he feared the police were preparing 
to hand over the Tibetan detainees to the Chinese.  Poloff 
called Home Secretary Tika Datta Niraula at home.  A male 
answered the phone and hung up after she identified herself. 
Repeated attempts to call back were met with a busy signal 
(which continued for several hours).  She also attempted to 
contact Ministry Joint Secretary Niranjan Baral at home at 
6:00 a.m. and was told he was out.  Other attempts to call 
back were also met with a busy signal.  Poloff consulted with 
a UNHCR protection officer on next steps.  The officer said 
she was planning to consult with Geneva shortly. 
 
4.  (SBU) Tsering then reported that Office of Tibet members 
observed the Tibetan detainees being taken out of the jail by 
police, who were attempting to put them into the Chinese 
Embassy van.  (Note:  They observed the scene from some 
distance, as they were not allowed onto the compound.  End 
note.)  When the detainees began screaming in protest, the 
police loaded all 18 into a police vehicle, which proceeded, 
followed by the Chinese van, to the Police Club grounds, 
where the occupants reportedly were transferred to the 
Chinese vehicle.  The Chinese vehicle (with its tell-tale 
license plate now covered in paper) was proceeding toward the 
Chinese border with a police escort, Tsering said. 
 
----------------- 
EMBASSY EFFORTS 
----------------- 
 
5.  (SBU) When attempts to speak to authorities on the 
telephone proved fruitless, charge went to Hanuman Dhoka Jail 
to meet the police and try to avert the detainees' 
deportation.  Unfortunately, however, by the time he arrived 
there around 8:00 a.m. (the jail is across town), the 
detainees were already gone.  All of the officers on duty 
claimed to have just begun their shifts, and professed 
ignorance of the events.  Charge attempted to contact the 
Superintendent of Police at his office, his home and on his 
cell phone, but was unsuccessful. 
 
6.  (C) In addition to delivering ref B demarche to the 
Foreign Secretary and contacting Home Ministry officials (Ref 
A), Embassy staff, including the Ambassador, have made a 
number of other representations at high levels on behalf of 
the Tibetan detainees.  On April 25 Ambassador Malinowski 
spoke with the Home Secretary about the case, and again on 
May 9 the Ambassador raised the Tibetans' plight with the 
King, who professed unawareness of the matter but undertook 
to look into it.  On May 28 the Charge again raised the 
matter with Prabhakar Rana, King Gyanendra's confidant and 
business partner.  On May 29 Charge discussed the problem 
with a prominent private American citizen, who reported that 
he had also raised the subject with the King that day. 
Charge spoke with Rana again on May 31 and asked him to 
convey to the King USG concerns at the GON's apparent change 
of policy with regard to Tibetans transiting Nepal.  Rana 
said that he intends to make a detailed proposal to the King, 
after researching the subject with the Tibetan community, 
UNHCR, and others, to clarify the GON's position and to 
formally revert to the past policy of turning over transiting 
Tibetans to UNHCR.  Charge advised UNHCR of Rana's intent. 
 
--------- 
COMMENT 
--------- 
 
7.  (C) Home Ministry officials were aware of our (and EU 
embassies') concern and studiously avoided our efforts to 
speak and/or meet with them all day May 30 and May 31.  The 
decision to deport the Tibetans despite our repeated 
representations presumably was taken at the very highest 
levels of the GON, which made a calculation that the costs of 
displeasing their giant northern neighbor on this issue far 
outweighed the possible benefits of responding to the 
concerns of the rest of the international community.  We find 
it ironic that the GON has so obviously disregarded our 
expressed views on this matter at the same time that it seems 
to be responding positively to our pressure to broaden 
representation in the interim government (Ref C).  We will 
continue to press the GON through all appropriate channels to 
reinstitute its former practice of turning over Tibetan 
"persons of concern" to UNHCR. 
 
BOGGS