US embassy cable - 03KATHMANDU1381

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 001381 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM: RMACKLER 
DEPT PASS TO USAID/ANE 
LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY, NSC FOR MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/23/2013 
TAGS: PREF, EAID, BH, NP, Bhutanese Refugees 
SUBJECT: NEPAL: BHUTANESE REFUGEE ISSUE RECEIVES 
DRAMATICALLY INCREASED ATTENTION 
 
REF: (A) KATHMANDU 1301 (B) KATHMANDU 1237 
 
Classified By: DCM Robert Boggs for reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
1. (C) Summary.  Ambassador Malinowski's letter to the 
editor, published prominently in several Nepali newspapers on 
July 10, opened the floodgates to a spate of comments and 
editorials from others in the international community, the 
Bhutanese National Assembly and the Government of Nepal (GON) 
regarding the fate of the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.  The 
EU, UNHCR, and Human Rights Watch have issued statements in 
support of the U.S. position.  Nepal's Foreign Ministry 
spokesperson denied that refugees would seek to stay in Nepal 
while the Bhutanese National Assembly reportedly condemned 
the decision by the Governments of Nepal and Bhutan to allow 
any refugees to return to Bhutan.  Some have suggested that 
the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB), by categorizing the 
majority of refugees as either non-Bhutanese or Bhutanese who 
must reapply for citizenship, have sent a message to the 
refugees that they are not welcome in Bhutan.  One thing is 
clear, the refugees may get caught between two governments, 
neither of which is willing to accept responsibility for 
their welfare.  Already there are indications that the 
frustration of the refugees is attracting the attention of 
political extremists, including Maoists.  End Summary. 
 
2. (U) On July 9, Ambassador Malinowski sent a letter to the 
editors of several local publications expressing concern 
about weaknesses and inconsistencies in the Nepal-Bhutan 
Joint Verification Team's categorization of the 12,000 
refugees residing in Khundunabari Camp in Eastern Nepal (Ref 
A).  The letter also called for international oversight of 
repatriation and resettlement, questioned the integrity of 
the appeals process, and underscored UNHCR's unique mandate 
to undertake this kind of mission.  The letter was 
well-received in the press, enjoying front page coverage in 
three national daily newspapers.  UNHCR and Human Rights 
Watch both publicly supported the U.S. position on the issue. 
 
 
3. (U) Subsequent to the letter's publication, a spate of 
commentaries and editorials have been published in Nepal's 
English-language dailies.  On July 18, the EU issued a press 
release expressing concern over the JVT's findings and the 
appellate procedures and calling for transparency in the 
repatriation process. 
 
4. (C) On July 19, Nepal's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, 
Joint Secretary Madan Kumar Bhattarai, was reported in the 
media as saying that the GON was confident that none of the 
Category II refugees (Bhutanese who allegedly had departed 
Bhutan voluntarily) would apply for Nepali citizenship. 
(Note. Category II comprises 70.5 percent of Khundunabari 
Camp residents.  End note.)  Bhattarai was quoted as saying 
that "even if they (the refugees) apply for citizenship, they 
will not meet the terms and conditions of Nepali 
citizenship."  According to UNHCR Director Abraham Abraham, 
the GON has not agreed to discuss a local resettlement 
program for the refugees.  (Comment.  The GON position could 
be a calculated attempt to discourage refugees in large 
numbers from deciding to stay in Nepal under the assumption 
that they will be able to integrate easily with the local 
population.  End Comment.) 
 
5. (U) Also on July 19, the Druk National Assembly in Bhutan 
reportedly attacked the JVT's decision to allow any refugees 
to resettle in Bhutan, stating that the team had "paved the 
way for the return of anti-nationals (Ngolops) into the 
country."  Members of Bhutan's Parliament also reportedly 
stated that "taking people from the camps in Nepal will only 
aggravate the problems in the country." 
 
6. (U) On July 22, two locally published editorials stressed 
the importance of including the international community in 
resolving the Bhutanese refugee problem.  One specifically 
suggested that the Government of India should be brought in 
to facilitate the return of the refugees to Bhutan.  On July 
23, an editorial written by Dr. S. Chandrasekharan, a former 
director of the Government of India's Research and Analysis 
Wing (RAW), cited the need for international organizations to 
play an active role in the repatriation of the Bhutanese 
refugees.  He suggested that the Government of Bhutan is 
looking to "create as many difficulties as possible so that 
these people remain in Nepal."  Also on July 23, a 
self-styled Bhutanese "liberation organization" reportedly 
issued a statement asking the RGOB to revoke the criminal 
charges against refugees charged with political crimes and 
appealing to the international community to exert pressure on 
the RGOB. 
 
7. (C) In a private conversation on July 22, UNHCR Director 
Abraham Abraham expressed concern that the RGOB intends to 
repatriate only Category I refugees (293 people) from the 
total Khundunabari camp population of 12,000.  Moreover, he 
fears that the RGOB intentionally categorized the majority of 
residents in Category II as a means to discourage most of the 
100,000 refugees in seven camps from repatriating to Bhutan. 
Already 94 percent of the 12,000 Khundunabari Camp residents 
have taken issue with the categorization by filing an appeal 
to the JVT.  If Category II residents opt not to return to 
Bhutan, the RGOB may wash its hands of the affair, claiming 
that it could do nothing more than provide the refugees with 
an opportunity to return.  Abraham said that the 15th Joint 
Ministerial taking place in Thimpu on August 11-15 will 
reveal whether the two sides are planning for a major 
movement of people or only a small group of refugees. 
 
8. (C) Comment.  Greatly increased media coverage and 
editorial interest in the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal has 
politicized and internationalized the issue.  Many 
commentators have argued that the RGOB does not intend to 
repatriate significant numbers of refugees, while the GON has 
stated that the refugees would not likely receive Nepali 
citizenship in the event that they decide to settle locally. 
What this is likely to mean for the refugees is that their 
status will deteriorate, at least in the eyes of the two 
governments, from that of refugees to that of stateless 
persons.  Also, the mood in the camps is likely to turn from 
one of long-suffering aspiration to one of frustration and 
anger as the hopes raised by the JVT's categorization and 
verification are dashed.  In particular, the large number of 
idle young people in the camps may become targets for 
recruitment into the Maoist organization or into militant 
anti-monarchical organizations of Nepalese Bhutanese.  There 
are signs already that the Maoists are infiltrating the camps 
through their student wing ANNISU-R (Ref B).  The uncertainty 
surrounding the Bhutanese refugees has made one thing clear: 
the need to find a solution to the refugee problem is more 
urgent than ever before.  End Comment. 
MALINOWSKI