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 000286 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR SA/INS AND PRM 
LONDON FOR POL - REIDEL 
GENEVA FOR RMA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PREL EAID BT NP IN
SUBJECT: NEPAL: BHUTANESE REFUGEES CRITICIZE REPATRIATION 
PLANS 
 
REF: A. KATHMANDU 228 
 
     ¶B. KATHMANDU 90 
 
¶1.  Summary: On February 12, PolOff met with respresentatives 
of the Bhutan National Democratic Party (BNDP), a political 
group composed of Bhutanese refugees living in 
UNHCR-administered camps in Nepal, to discuss the results of 
the 12th round of ministerial talks on the refugee issue (ref 
A). While reiterating the desire of the majority of the 
refugees to return to Bhutan, the representatives voiced 
concerns about possible post-repatriation complications. 
They also expressed suspicion that Bhutan might be "behaving 
properly" only as a tactic to polish its image just before 
donor meetings in Geneva, and encouraged the US to pressure 
India and other donors to help find a lasting solution to the 
crisis.  Recent editorials and reports in the local press 
have echoed the skeptical tone, contending that "Nepal has 
been duped once again."  End summary. 
 
¶2.  In a Feburary 12 meeting with PolOff, representatives 
from the Bhutan National Democratic Party, Dr. Das Dhakal and 
Chhabi Lal Timilsina, warned that even if refugees currently 
residing in eleven UNHCR-administered camps in Eastern Nepal 
are allowed to return to Bhutan, problems would continue to 
arise after repatriation.  The representatives expressed 
concern that no assurances have been forthcoming about 
citizenship for the refugees in their former homeland, nor 
any guarantees that their human rights would be protected, 
and suggested that an international monitoring body would be 
necessary for an indefinite period following the return of 
any refugees to Bhutan. 
 
¶3.  Despite possible problems, the representatives said that 
90 percent of the refugees would go back to Bhutan if offered 
the chance.  Even though most are aware that their homes and 
farms likely will not be waiting for them, "if Bhutan makes 
them eligible," Timilsina said plainly, "all but a few of 
them will go in a minute. And if the king (of Bhutan) has had 
a real change in his heart, it will be no problem at all." 
However, regardless of the GOB's recent apparent cooperation 
with the GON in finding a solution, the GOB is unlikely to 
agree to the return of large number of refugees, they 
insisted. 
 
¶4.  Both representatives attributed Bhutan's current attitude 
to a desire to "look good for the donors," rather than any 
intention to allow the refugees to return in large numbers, 
and encouraged the US to exert whatever pressure it can on 
the GOB.  Without international pressure, according to 
Dhakal, "Bhutan will try to make as many people as possible 
ineligible."  The representatives singled out India as the 
best target for US influence, stressing that India could 
easily make up any shortfalls in other international 
assistance.  "India is key, because it can bail out Bhutan," 
Dhakal said. 
 
¶5.  Reaction by other refugee groups to the outcome of the 
12th round of ministerial talks, reported in the local press, 
echoed the Dhakal's skepticism.  The Bhutan Peoples Party 
said that the GON had "demonstrated inferior diplomatic 
skills," while the Association of Human Rights Activists - 
Bhutan accused the GON of "playing into the hands of the 
Bhutanese regime."  The Druk National Congress said that the 
Bhutanese government is continuing the talks as part of a 
plan to deceive donor countries, and the Bhutanese 
Repatriation Committee demanded "the internationalization of 
issues relating to the refugees." 
 
¶6.  The reaction of the Bhutanese Refugees Repatriation 
Support Group, whose members include several former GON 
ministers (ref B), was split.  While one member stated that 
the agreement reached between the GOB and GON "can be taken 
positively," former foreign minister Shailendra Kumar 
Upadhyay was entirely less sanguine in his comments to 
reporters, saying "Nepal has been duped once again."  In a 
commentary printed in the English daily The Himalayan Times, 
Upadhyay called for a definite timeline for verification and 
repatriation, as well as international pressure on Bhutan. 
"The Bhutanese government has chosen to baffle Nepal once 
more by agreeing to start veriication ahead of the donors' 
meeting in Geneva this month," Upadhyay wrote. "It wants to 
create the impression on the international community that it 
is willing to accommodate bona fide Bhutanese by cooperating 
with Nepal."  Bhutanese sincerity, he added, can be measured 
by the GOB's willingness to take back the refugees within a 
prescribed timeframe.  "If the 13th ministerial meeting can 
agree upon such a time-table... it could be welcomed by all. 
Otherwise, the international community must reject and expose 
Bhutan's dilatory tactics." 
 
¶7. Comment:  Post shares much of the refugee community's 
skepticism about the sincerity of Bhutan's agreement to start 
moving toward large-scale repatriation of refugees.  Similar 
statements have been made by the GOB in the past, only to be 
forgotten when the world is no longer watching.  While the 
apparent positive outcomes of the 12th ministerial talks are 
encouraging, continued international pressure will be 
necessary to ensure that the GOB lives up to its promises. 
MALINOWSKI