US embassy cable - 03KATHMANDU1432

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 001432 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SA/INS, SA/RA 
LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY, NSC FOR MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/31/2013 
TAGS: PREL, PREF, PHUM, NP, BT, Bhutanese Refugees 
SUBJECT: NEPAL: PLANS FOR BHUTANESE REFUGEE REPATRIATION 
STILL UNCLEAR 
 
REF: SECSTATE 215687 
 
Classified By: DCM Robert Boggs for reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
1. (C) Summary.  DCM met with Madan Kumar Bhattarai, MFA 
Acting Secretary and Joint Secretary for South Asia, on July 
31 to discuss progress toward a durable solution for the 
Bhutanese refugee problem in Eastern Nepal as instructed 
reftel.  Bhattarai admitted that the Government of Nepal and 
Royal Government of Bhutan did not see eye-to-eye on the 
issue of third party involvement and that the GON looked 
favorably upon UNHCR participation.  He did not believe many 
Khundunabari Camp refugees would successfully appeal their 
categorization, indicating that only 10-12 appeal cases were 
being seriously considered by the Bhutanese Joint 
Verification Team members.  Bhattarai claimed that both 
Category I and II refugees would begin repatriation on 
September 25.  However, the GON has not yet begun internal 
discussions on a local resettlement program, he said. 
Moreover, Bhattarai did not know whether the RGOB had begun 
making logistical arrangements for the September 
repatriation.  Post continues to be deeply concerned that 
neither the RGOB or GON is truly committed to reintegrating 
the refugees into their local communities.  End Summary. 
 
2. (C) On July 31, DCM Robert Boggs, accompanied by PolOff, 
met with Madan Kumar Bhattarai, MFA Acting Secretary and 
Joint Secretary for South Asia, to discuss reftel points. 
The DCM opened the meeting by expressing concern that the 
practical issues involving the transportation and 
repatriation of refugees to Bhutan have not been adequately 
addressed by the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB).  If the 
RGOB is not committed to upholding international standards 
for refugee resettlement, then the USG fears that refugees 
will choose not to return to Bhutan and instead seek 
resettlement in Nepal and elsewhere.  Involvement of the 
UNHCR or other international NGOs in the verification and 
resettlement process would help to alleviate the refugees' 
uncertainties, he said.  The DCM also highlighted USG 
concerns that the dashed aspirations of those refugees who 
are not guaranteed Bhutanese citizenship will create a 
fertile breeding ground within the camps for extremist groups 
from either Bhutan or Nepal. 
 
3. (C) Bhattarai admitted that the GON and RGOB did not see 
eye-to-eye regarding international involvement in the 
verification and repatriation process.  The GON recognizes 
that the objective of the international community is to have 
a positive impact on the issue, he said, and as such looks 
favorably upon UNHCR involvement.  Bhattarai claimed that the 
GON also had attempted to impress on the Government of India 
the need for international assistance, but without success. 
He mentioned that Indian National Security Advisor Brajesh 
Mishra would be departing soon for another visit to Thimpu to 
discuss border security issues. He implied that he did not 
expect refugee repatriation to be on Mishra's agenda. 
 
4. (C) The DCM inquired into the results of the Nepal-Bhutan 
Joint Verification Team's (JVT) review of the appeals 
submitted by 94 percent of Khundunabari Camp residents. 
Bhattarai replied that although July 31 was the last day for 
review of appeals, recommendations would not negotiated 
bilaterallyl until the 15th Joint Ministerial, scheduled to 
take place in Thimpu during August 11-15.  He confided that 
the Bhutanese JVT members were giving serious consideration 
to only 10-12 cases.  The Nepali side, however, has reviewed 
far more cases than the Bhutanese, Bhattarai said, although 
he did not specify how many.  Bhattarai stated that because 
the Bhutanese and Nepali JVT teams did not agree on which 
appeals merited a review, the two sides would likely submit 
differing recommendations to the August Ministerial. 
 
5. (C) Bhattarai refuted fears by some in the international 
community that the RGOB plans to accept only Category I 
refugees (Bhutanese citizens).  "Both Category I and II will 
go," he said.  When asked about GON preparations to resettle 
in Nepal those refugees who choose not to repatriate to 
Bhutan, Bhattarai said that his government had not begun 
internal discussions on this issue. 
 
6. (C) The DCM then asked whether the GON was aware if any 
logistical arrangements had been made to prepare for the 
September 25 departure of the refugees from Khundunabari 
Camp.  Bhattarai replied that the GON was not aware of any 
arrangements the RGOB might have made to receive the 
returning refugees, but that the GON expects the RGOB to 
report on its activities in this area at the August 
Ministerial. 
 
7. (C) Comment.  Post is concerned over the continuing lack 
of information on the RGOB's logistical arrangements for the 
repatriation of Khundunabari Camp refugees to Bhutan.  These 
arrangments are supposed to be finalized at the August 
Ministerial, which begins in less than two weeks.  The issue 
of granting some of the refugees Nepali citizenship is a 
political hot potato.  Thousands of people of Indian 
extraction living in the Terai for generations are still 
without Nepali citizenship.  Although the GON might be 
willing to allow some refugees to resettle locally, Post 
doubts the GON will seriously consider granting citizenship, 
leaving the refugees as stateless persons.  Post will again 
raise this issue with MFA Secretary Acharya upon his return 
to Kathmandu.  End Comment. 
MALINOWSKI