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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 002345 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM/ANE:MPITOTTI, PRM/A: CHILL; LONDON FOR 
POL/GURNEY; NSC FOR MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PREL PHUM BH NP
SUBJECT: PROMOTING DURABLE SOLUTIONS FOR THE BHUTANESE 
 
REFUGEES IN NEPAL 
 
REF: STATE 326211 
 
¶1. (SBU) Post welcomes reftel's proposals regarding a durable 
solution for the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.  We concur that 
U.S. objetives for the refugees are first, to ensure that 
basic protection and assistance needs of the refugees are met 
and second, to advance efforts by the Government of Nepal 
(GON) and Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) to achieve a 
durable solution to the Bhutanese refugee problem. 
 
-------------------------- 
LOCAL INTEGRATION IN NEPAL 
-------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Reftel suggests that Post look for progress by the 
GON to integrate refugees into Nepal.  Post supports the 
principle of local integration and will encourage and support 
GON plans to settle a number of refugees in Nepal.  However, 
settlement in Nepal will be difficult politically and legally 
and may not lead to a stable or secure situation for a large 
number of refugees.  In any case, settlement in Nepal should 
not be pressed on the GON until it becomes clearer how 
sincere the Bhutan Government is about repatriation, which, 
we believe, is still the first choice of most refugees. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Local integration is a politically-charged topic for 
a number of reasons and may prove too controversial for any 
government, much less this interim government, to implement. 
A UNHCR Protection Officer in Kathmandu estimated that there 
are over 400,000 people in Nepal (mostly undocumented 
immigrants from India) waiting for Nepali citizenship and 
roughly 2 million ethnic Nepalis waiting for land 
distribution from the GON.  Offering citizenship and land to 
the refugees could, therefore, cause significant political 
backlash.  Moreover, Eastern Nepal, where the refugee camps 
are located, is more densely populated and richer in natural 
resources than other parts of Nepal.  As a result, it is 
unlikely that the refugees would be resettled in or near the 
communities with which they have been co-located for the past 
13 years. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Thousands of Tibetan refugees currently work and 
live in Nepal, but do not have citizenship status and cannot 
obtain travel documents or other official papers without 
paying hefty bribes to GON officials.  Any Bhutanese refugee 
who decides to stay in Nepal will likely be accorded the same 
quasi-legal status.  It may be difficult, therefore, for the 
USG to support local integration in Nepal if that means that 
the Bhutanese are left in the same legal limbo as the 
Tibetans. 
 
----------------------------------- 
PROGRESS OF JOINT VERIFICATION TEAM 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Reftel also suggests that Post report on the results 
of a Joint Verification Team (JVT) meeting.  The team arrived 
in Khudunabari Camp the week of December 1 to begin its 
review of appeals submitted by Category III refugees. 
According to Nepal's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), the 
JVT will complete the appellate review prior to the January 
2004 Joint Ministerial meeting.  Post will report on the 
JVT's findings at that time.  The MFA has indicated that 
verification of the second refugee camp, Sanischere, will 
begin after Khudunabari camp refugees are repatriated.  Under 
the most optimistic timeline, the JVT will start verification 
of Sanischere in late February/early March and complete the 
process roughly four months later, perhaps by July 2004. 
Verification of the second camp may take longer than 
anticipated because of international advocacy to treat men 
and women equally.  If verification procedures are revised so 
that women refugees are granted separate interviews, rather 
than interviewing only heads-of-household, the process could 
take twice as long. 
 
------------------ 
OTHER USG EFFORTS 
------------------ 
 
¶6. (SBU) Post agrees that it is important to monitor closely 
and report on progress made by the Joint Verification Team 
and the Government of Nepal.  We also agree that joint 
demarches with the Friends of Bhutan and Nepal, given our 
approaches are aligned, would have a positive impact on the 
process.  However, in order to ensure the basic protection 
and assistance needs of all Bhutanese refugees, including 
those in Khudunabari Camp, Post believes more immediate 
action is necessary.  Post recommends that a high-level visit 
from Washington to New Delhi, Thimpu, and Kathmandu could 
have an immediate and positive impact on the issue.  Such a 
visit would send the message that the USG is serious and 
engaged about this important human rights issue. 
 
¶7. (SBU) A visit to New Delhi also could emphasize that 
India's support for repatriation is absolutely critical to 
its succses.  It would be important to highlight to the 
Government of India, as well as to the RGOB, the importance 
of resolving the refugee problem to avoid further insecurity 
in the region.  The continuing education of girls and boys in 
the refugee camps in Dzongka language, culture and traditions 
demonstrates the refugees' commitment to Bhutan and their 
desire to return as loyal subjects and upstanding citizens. 
However, if they are not able to return to Bhutan with 
citizenship and other basic rights, these groups might grow 
increasingly radical. The young men and women in the camps 
have already become more vulnerable to solicitation by 
anti-monarchical political movements supporting the 
"liberation of Bhutan - Nepal".  We fear that if the 
refugees' needs are ignored, the Bhutan-India border region 
may witness further instability. 
 
¶8. (SBU) A senior visit to Thimpu could emphasize these 
security concerns, but also focus on third-party monitoring 
(other than UNHCR), citizenship for the refugees and property 
rights -- the three key issues identified by the refugees 
themselves as being most critical for their successful 
repatriation.  Another important issue will be the freedom to 
seek employment commensurate with their relatively high 
levels of education.  A visit to Nepal could focus on the 
importance of resettling some refugees locally with provision 
of land and relaxed requirements for citizenship.  We believe 
it is important to address these issues quickly, before 
repatriation begins. 
 
 
MALINOWSKI