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 03 KATHMANDU 001549 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM/ANE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/04/2014 
TAGS: PREF PGOV PREL BT IN NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: BHUTANESE REFUGEE FRUSTRATION GROWING - 
THIRD COUNTRY RESETTLEMENT DESIRED 
 
REF: A. KATHMANDU 230 
 
     ¶B. KATHMANDU 1147 
     ¶C. NEW DELHI 4698 
     ¶D. KATHMANDU 1444 
 
Classified By: Ambassador James F. Moriarty; Reasons 1.4 (b/d). 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Only surprising in that it took so long to 
come about, some Bhutanese refugee leaders and many refugees 
are starting to ask for immediate third-country resettlement. 
 During a discussion between StaffDel Blazey and two refugee 
leaders, as well as with young professional refugees, refugee 
frustration with the seemingly interminable negotiations over 
their possible return and hopelessness about a forthcoming 
solution were palpable.  The refugees wanted to be able to 
return as citizens to their property with a third party, such 
as UNHCR, to ensure their safety in Bhutan.  Unless the 
bilateral process is restarted expeditiously, and 
repatriation begins soon, third-country resettlement may 
become the only option.  END SUMMARY. 
 
========================================= 
TWO REFUGEE LEADERS BRIEF STAFFDEL BLAZEY 
========================================= 
 
¶2. (C) During a meeting with StaffDel Blazey upon the 
StaffDel's return from Bhutan, Ratan Gazmere (Chief 
Coordinator, Association of Human Rights Activists Bhutan) 
and Tek Nath Rizal (senior refugee leader and former Royal 
Advisory Council member to the King of Bhutan) told the 
StaffDel that after so many years in refugees camps, it was 
time to start looking at other options, such as third-country 
resettlement.  This was despite the real desire of the 
refugees to return home.  The StaffDel told the refugees that 
their conversations with Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) 
officials in Thimpu, including the Foreign Minister, had led 
them to believe that Bhutan did intend to bring home some of 
the refugees.  However, the 22 December incident in which 
some refugees reacted violently to the Bhutanese Joint 
Verification Team leaders' pronouncement of the conditions of 
return had offended the Bhutanese sense of national pride. 
The situation needed to be addressed to the satisfaction of 
the Bhutanese before more progress could be made.  (NOTE: A 
local press article on August 5 quoted Prime Minister Deuba 
as indicating that outstanding issues between Nepal and 
Bhutan had been resolved on the margins of the BIMSTEC Summit 
in Thailand, and that the "process" would restart.  END NOTE.) 
 
¶3. (C) Dismissing the RGOB's perspective as propoganda, 
Gazmere asked why the RGOB would sound so flexible to the 
StaffDel, while almost at the same time the Bhutanese 
National Assembly was dismissing the notion of allowing 
refugees to return.  Rizal argued that under the Bhutanese 
system of government, these two disparate statements were 
coming from the same mouth.  The Bhutanese head of the Joint 
Verification Team had been a District Head in southern Bhutan 
during the start of the forced exodus, Gazmere noted, and the 
Bhutanese Ambassador to India had been the Home Minister at 
the same time.  The refugees were hard-pressed to believe any 
purported good intentions from these RGOB players. 
 
¶4. (C) Turning to the presently halted bilateral verification 
process, Gazmere doubted whether repatriation would ever 
happen.  Moreover, the refugees had no input in the 
verification process or determining into which category 
refugees would fall.  Gazmere pointed out the logical 
discrepancy of having family units divided into different 
categories.  In some cases, for example, parents were 
Category Two (allowed to return under stringent conditions) 
and children were Category Four (criminals subject to arrest 
upon return).  In the unlikely event that verification 
restarted, Gazmere stated, the refugees should be included in 
the categorization process in the other camps to prevent such 
anomalies.  Moreover, what right did the GON have to agree to 
categorize refugees as Bhutanese criminals, he asked? 
However, the refugees would not challenge the verification 
process carried out thus far if the conditions for return 
were acceptable to the refugees. 
 
¶5. (C) After more than 13 years in the refugee camps, people 
were losing hope of returning, Gazmere noted.  Meanwhile, if 
the RGOB had already agreed through the bilateral 
verification process that 293 of their own citizens (74 
families) were in the camps but had still not repatriated 
them, what hope did the other refugees have that they would 
be fairly treated by Bhutan, Gazmere asked?  Recently, 
several families had approached UNHCR to request immediate 
third-country resettlement, and Gazmere believed more would 
do so soon.  Without refugee involvement in the verification 
process and acceptable conditions for repatriation, Gazmere 
believed it was more and more unlikely that many refugees 
would return voluntarily. 
 
¶6. (C) The power of senior refugee leaders to advise the 
refugees and to continue to push for non-violence was waning, 
Gazmere cautioned.  Gazmere and Rizal both stated that, while 
they would not push refugees to either return or not to 
Bhutan in any event, their ability to affect the refugees' 
decision in this regard was becoming questionable.  Referring 
to recent stories of Maoist penetration of the refugee camps 
as possible but not certain, Gazmere indicated that it was 
clear that increasing frustration, especially among the many 
young people in the camps, was leading some refugees to 
become more radicalized.  It was time to start looking at 
other options, such as third-country resettlement. 
 
----------------------------- 
BHUTANESE REFUGEE YOUTH FORUM 
----------------------------- 
 
¶7. (C) Three leaders from the Bhutanese Refugee Youth Forum 
met with PolOff on August 4 and asked that the USG 
immediately begin to accept Bhutanese refugees for 
resettlement.  (NOTE: They also delivered a letter to the 
Ambassador containing the same request.  The letter has been 
faxed to PRM.  END NOTE.)  Bahadur Singh Subba, Kisor Pradhan 
and Prakash Subedi (all in their 30's; a college advisor, a 
college lecturer and a medical doctor, respectively) 
explained the difficulties facing young refugees.  (NOTE: 
The three said their organization represented 6,000 young 
Bhutanese refugees, not including their spouses and children. 
 END NOTE.)  Many refugees were working illegally outside the 
camps, they admitted, but faced wage discrimination based on 
their illegal status.  Meanwhile, refugees were regularly 
granted permission to live outside the camps for academic 
pursuits.   However, this created problems, because in many 
cases the refugees and their immediate families did not want 
to return to the camps after completing their degrees.  In 
the case of Subedi, for example, although he had completed 
his medical degree, he was pursuing a second degree to 
maintain the right to continue to live outside the camp.  "My 
children don't want to live in the camps."  In fact, he 
stated that he had applied with UNHCR for permission to serve 
as a medical doctor in Iraq, but the request was denied by 
the GON.  "We want to start our careers, and we have children 
and elderly parents to care for."  Many young refugees were 
facing depression, Subedi argued.  "I think I have prescribed 
more anti-depressants than any other doctor in Nepal," he 
stated.  "I don't want to do that anymore." 
 
¶8. (C) Arguing, as Rizal had, that the RGOB was being 
duplicitous, Pradhan alleged that 50 of the 150-member 
National Assembly in Bhutan were appointed by the King, and 
the other 100 were appointed by District Heads, certainly 
with the King's approval.  Many young refugees such as 
themselves had marched for democracy before the forced 
exodus, and even if they returned, there was little hope of 
the freedom they desired, Pradhan stated.  In any case, "Our 
camps have not been verified by the JVT yet," Pradhan noted, 
"but we all know that we will be put in Category 4 
(criminals) for participating in peaceful demonstrations." 
Subba added that he had already been jailed in Bhutan for 
participating in a rally for human rights, and had been made 
to sign two blank papers upon his release, which he thought 
had come about because of the intervention of Amnesty 
International UK.  "I will agree to go back to jail," he 
said, "but only if UNHCR is there to protect me."  The three 
worried that many young refugees such as themselves were 
running out of time to start their careers and be productive. 
 They also dismissed any hope of the bilateral process 
achieving any results.  "Besides," they asked, "even if we 
return, what is the hope of real human rights and democracy?" 
 Dismissing both Nepal's efforts in the bilateral process as 
well as the notion of integration in Nepal out-of-hand, the 
only durable solution they saw for the refugees was to 
immediately begin third-country resettlement.  "Can we apply 
today for refugee status to the U.S.?" they asked. 
 
¶9. (C)  COMMENT:  The mood change among the refugees is 
palpable.  While many of the older refugees would probably 
still prefer to return to Bhutan, the senior leaders feel 
like they are losing their influence over the larger refugee 
population, and as such, violence or  radicalization might be 
the result.  This is also the first time that younger 
refugees have stepped out from behind the traditional leaders 
to demand a different course of action -- resettlement. 
Indeed, unless real progress on the repatriation front comes 
very quickly, third-country resettlement could become the 
preferred option for many refugees.  END COMMENT. 
MORIARTY