This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 KATHMANDU 002150 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SA/INS AND PRM:JLEADER AND MPITOTTI, LONDON FOR 
POL/GURNEY, NSC FOR MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/03/2013 
TAGS: PREF PREL PTER BH NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: HOPELESSNESS REIGNS IN BHUTANESE REFUGEE 
CAMPS 
 
REF: (A) KATHMANDU 2075 (B) KATHMANDU 1849 
 
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Robert K. Boggs for Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
¶1. (C) Summary.  During a visit to the Bhutanese refugee 
camps in Eastern Nepal on October 29-30, PolOff met with 
UNHCR field officers, refugee community leaders, and the 
Khudunabari Camp Management Committee.  Following the 15th 
Joint Ministerial in Thimpu (Ref A), the general mood among 
the refugees was one of despondency and anxiety.  They have 
been left with many unanswered questions, such as where they 
will live and whether they will be granted citizenship. 
Under current conditions, it appears that only a handful of 
Category I and II refugees will decide to return.  John 
Andrew, the UNHCR field office director, was worried about 
security in the camps since Nepalese security forces were 
pulled out in September following a Maoist attack on the 
Khudunabari Camp police post (Ref B).   Andrew believes 
Maoists have forced refugees to act as porters and to provide 
food and shelter.  Maoist flags have recently appeared in and 
around several of the camps, including Khudunabari.  The 
refugees urged the U.S. Government to remain involved in the 
refugee problem.  End Summary. 
 
----------- 
Background 
----------- 
 
¶2. (U) PolOff visited the UNHCR field office and Bhutanese 
refugees at Khudunabari Camp in Jhapa District on October 
29-30.  She met with John Andrew, the UNHCR field office 
director, the WFP local coordinator, the Khudunabari Camp 
Management Committee and other residents of the camp. 
Sanitation, education and food facilities at Khudunabari were 
well-run and in good working order.  The camp was clean and 
the refugees took obvious care to make their personal spaces 
livable.  However, living quarters were cramped with only 
three small rooms (roughly 7 x 7 feet each) for up to eight 
family members and only several feet between houses. 
Although refugee-managed activities, such as food 
distribution, a children's play center and a bakery, keep 
some refugees occupied, out of the 12,000 refugees at the 
camp, perhaps only 400 are actively involved in these small 
programs. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
Refugees Worried About Conditions of Repatriation 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶3. (SBU) The refugees' most critical concern regarding 
repatriation to Bhutan is the return of their former property 
holdings.  According to the refugees, citizenship and land 
ownership in Bhutan are closely linked.  (Note. In Bhutan's 
1958 Nationality Law, to become a Bhutanese National, a 
"foreigner" must own "agricultural land" and have lived in 
Bhutan for 10 years.  End Note.)  Many refugees have land 
registration certificates, although in many cases, the 
refugees claim that the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) has 
issued new registration certificates in an effort to transfer 
title of land previously owned by the refugees to 
non-Nepalese ethnics.  Additionally, some community leaders 
reported rumors that the RGOB plans to resettle the refugees 
in remote northern areas of the country where land is not 
arable.  "We are farmers and would not know what to do in the 
cold mountains," one said.  Others worried more about 
placement in temporary camps without a UNHCR presence. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The second most-cited concern focused on rules 
governing the re-application for citizenship of Category II 
refugees (i.e., those who allegedly emigrated voluntarily). 
Most were concerned that after the two-year probationary 
period, their applications would be denied and they would be 
left with no support either from the RGOB or the 
international community.  The refugees continued to reject 
the verification results and looked to the Joint Verification 
Team's review of Category III (i.e., non-Bhutanese) appeals 
with little hope for a positive outcome.  The Deputy 
Secretary of Khudunabari Camp, a woman with a husband and 
 
SIPDIS 
three children, showed PolOff her National Identification 
Card issued by the RGOB in the 1980s.  Despite this evidence 
of her Bhutanese citizenship, the JVT had categorized her as 
non-Bhutanese.  Many refugees had similar claims. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Other concerns expressed by the refugees included 
employment and education opportunities.  Many of the refugees 
are highly-qualified professionals, such as accountants, 
teachers and health workers.  However, they have heard rumors 
that the RGOB intends to use them for manual labor in 
industries that suffer from labor shortages, such as the 
growing hydropower sector.  The refugees are worried that 
they will not be free to pursue other employment 
opportunities.  Many refugees that are parents of middle- and 
high-school age children also fear that their sons and 
daughters will have to wait long periods before enrolling in 
schools. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Khudunabari Camp residents were greatly disappointed 
that the Government of Nepal (GON) and RGOB failed to agree 
on third-party involvement in the verification and/or 
repatriation process.  They were also disheartened by the 
apparent decision to review only the appeals of Category III 
residents, leaving the vast majority of refugees in Category 
II with no guarantees on their future status in Bhutan. 
Despite their fears, however, the majority of refugees want 
to return to Bhutan. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Overall, the refugees seemed distrustful of the 
RGOB's intentions regarding repatriation.  Despite the RGOB's 
claims to the contrary, they believe it does not, in the end, 
intend to grant citizenship to Category II refugees.  They 
fear that the RGOB will force them out of Bhutan at a later 
date with the expectation that the international community 
will not step back in to aid the former refugees.  UNHCR 
officials in Nepal agree that this could happen and that 
under such a scenario, the GON likely would not allow the 
refugees back into Nepal.  Refugee community leaders believe 
that the RGOB blames UNHCR for creating the refugee problem 
because, at the time of their expulsion from Bhutan, the RGOB 
had hoped the refugees would merely assimilate into Nepal as 
those from Burma did many years before.  (FYI: Although India 
would have been the country of first refuge, the Indian 
Government was complicit in the explusion from Bhutan by 
trucking the refugees to Nepal.  End FYI.) 
 
---------------------------------- 
Increased Concerns over Security 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (C) John Andrew, the UNHCR field office director, confided 
his concerns over security in and around the camps. 
According to Andrew, the law-and-order situation in the camps 
has deteriorated in recent weeks, following the withdrawal of 
police personnel from the camps.  The Deputy Inspector 
General of Police in Jhapa District has failed to follow 
through with his promise to provide regular mobile patrols in 
and around the camps, he said.  Andrew mentioned that the 
National Police and Armed Police have asked UNHCR for fuel 
and vehicle support in order to conduct additional patrols. 
UNHCR is not able to provide that assistance, he said. 
¶9. (C) As a result, petty thievery and other forms of minor 
crime have increased lately.  More significantly perhaps, 
Andrew believes that Maoists are using the lax environment to 
base nighttime operations out of the camps.  He suspects that 
the Maoists have forced refugees to carry supplies, as well 
as to provide them with food and shelter.  However, the 
refugees have not filed formal complaints to UNHCR or the 
police for fear of Maoist reprisal, he said.  Andrew also 
reported that Maoist flags are visible around several of the 
camps.  PolOff saw one large Maoist flag hanging 
conspicuously outside a small business near the entrance to 
Khudunabari Camp. 
 
------------------------------------- 
Refugees Seek Continued U.S. Support 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (C) Although the vast majority of the refugees want to 
return to their homeland and not remain in Nepal, refugee 
community leaders predict that few Khudunabari Camp residents 
will choose to return under current conditions.  All of the 
refugees were aware that obtaining Nepali citizenship would 
be even less likely than Bhutanese citizenship.  This dilemma 
is foremost in the minds of all Khudunabari Camp residents 
and few answers are being offered to them.  The Camp 
Management Committee asked the U.S. Government to remain 
actively involved on the issue in coming months.  With the 
belief that only Bhutan's monarch can resolve the current 
impasse, they urged the USG to convey their concerns to the 
King of Bhutan. 
 
¶11. (C) Andrew commented that UNHCR is planning to conduct an 
assessment in all seven camps to identify vulnerable groups 
that might require resettlement in third countries.  Andrew 
said that UNHCR has been responding to many inquiries by the 
refugees regarding third-country resettlement options.  To 
date, however, UNHCR has replied that no such options are 
available. 
 
-------- 
Comment 
-------- 
 
¶12. (C) The sense of despair in Khudunabari Camp was 
palpable.  With no hope that their appeals will be 
successful, the refugees were anxious about their future and 
conflicted about what to do now.  UNHCR Lubbers' speech at 
UNGA left them with the impression that the U.N., which has 
acted as their primary advocate over the past decade, is now 
planning to withdraw that support.  Likewise, the refugees 
have been given little reason to trust the Bhutanese 
Government.  They believe the RGOB has sent significant 
nonverbal messages to discourage them from repatriating, such 
as continued seizure and resettlement of their land and the 
appointment to the JVT of officials who had been active in 
their expulsion in 1989-1990.  The refugees also know that, 
with millions of immigrants from India to the Terai eager to 
obtain Nepali citizenship, the GON is unlikely to relax its 
legal requirements, making local resettlement an unattractive 
option. 
 
¶13. (C) Comment Continued: Despite the refugees' lack of 
trust in the RGOB, most desire to return to Bhutan.  However, 
conditions of return, especially for Category II refugees, 
need to be made explicit.  Will the refugees be returned to 
their properties or home areas?  Exactly which provisions of 
Bhutan's Citizenship Law will apply to Category II 
applicants?  Will the refugees be permitted to seek and 
obtain employment according to their qualifications?  Will 
their children be able to transfer without delay into schools 
in Bhutan?  Will instruction in these schools be in Nepali or 
the majority Dzonkha language? Post believes these questions 
are valid and that the RGOB should be encouraged to address 
them formally in detail and in public.  End Comment. 
BOGGS