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 000647 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR SA/INS AND PRM 
LONDON FOR POL - GURNEY 
GENEVA FOR RMA - LYNCH 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/07/2013 
TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL PGOV NP BT
SUBJECT: NEPAL:  BHUTANESE REFUGEE CONCERNS ABOUT 
REPATRIATION 
 
REF: A. (A) KATHMANDU 0565 
     ¶B. (B) NEW DELHI 1470 
     ¶C. (C) GENEVA 1010 
 
Classified By: DCM ROBERT K. BOGGS. REASON:  1.5 (B,D). 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
-------- 
 
¶1.  (C)  On April 8 a delegation of Bhutanese refugees from 
eastern Nepal met with poloff to raise a number of concerns 
about ongoing discussions between the Governments of Nepal 
and Bhutan regarding the refugees' categorization and 
possible repatriation to Bhutan.  Among such concerns are 
whether returnees will be able to reclaim their former 
property; what will happen to returnees who are ultimately 
denied Bhutanese citizenship; whether members of the same 
family will be categorized differently; and whether the 
Bhutanese Government will allow UNHCR monitoring of 
repatriation.  The refugees asked the USG to maintain 
pressure on the Bhutanese to offer returnees equitable 
treatment, including the reinstatement of their citizenship. 
The Embassy has seen no evidence thus far that the Nepali and 
Bhutanese governments are addressing these concerns in 
continuing discussions of the refugee problem.  End summary. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
REFUGEES RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT REPATRIATION 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (C)  On April 8 a six-man delegation, composed of the 
secretaries of the six Bhutanese refugee camps in eastern 
 
SIPDIS 
Nepal, visited poloff to discuss the reported agreement 
between the Governments of Nepal and Bhutan regarding 
categorization of the refugees and probable numbers eligible 
for repatriation to Bhutan (Ref A).  Although no one from 
either government has briefed the refugee community on the 
agreement, the delegation said they understood from press 
reports that about 60 percent of the "verified" refugees had 
been classified as "voluntary" emigrants from Bhutan.  The 
Government of Bhutan (GOB) reportedly had agreed to take back 
refugees in this voluntary category with the proviso that 
they must reapply for Bhutanese citizenship.  The returnees 
would have two years within which they must qualify for 
citizenship.  The refugee leaders believed that those 
classified as non-Bhutanese or criminals would not be 
accepted for repatriation under any conditions.  (Note: 
Details of the agreement have not been made public.  The 
refugees' understanding, however, tracks generally with what 
we were told privately by the MFA.  End note.) 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  The refugee representatives expressed concern that 
the two governments had not sought input from the refugee 
community in drafting the agreement.  By their own 
estimation, the delegates said that approximately 80 percent 
of the 100,000 refugees likely fall into the "voluntary" 
migrant category.  (Note:  The refugees maintain that 
"voluntary" is a polite fiction, since, they claim, the GOB 
forced most of them to sign documents asserting that they 
were leaving the country of their own free will.  Many of 
those who signed such documents--illiterate Nepali-speaking 
farmers--could not read or understand the language in which 
the documents were written.  End note.)  Where will the 
returnees live while their applications for citizenship are 
being reviewed over the two-year period?  The land in Bhutan 
formerly owned by the refugees has since been occupied by 
others, the delegation  charged; there is little hope of 
reclaiming it.  The GOB might put them in "transit camps" 
pending review of their citizenship claims, they worried. 
Who will monitor their treatment in Bhutan, given the GOB's 
persistent refusal to entertain a UNHCR presence? they asked. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  Ramesh Subha, Secretary at the Beldangi I camp, 
said the refugees had heard that the GOB is setting up 
"camps" for laborers in the barren northeast of the country. 
Noting that GOB had reportedly committed to provide 
employment for the returnees, Subha speculated that the 
returnees might be resettled in these camps to work as manual 
laborers for prospective hydropower projects.  Of greatest 
concern to the delegation, however, was what they perceived 
as the uncertain fate of returnees who must reapply for 
citizenship.  The same regime that had once branded them as 
undesirables and forced them out of the country remains in 
power, they observed.  Should the GOB ultimately reject their 
applications--and most seemed to believe this a likely 
outcome--would they be forced out again? 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  The delegation also voiced concern about the 
possibility that members of the same family might be 
categorized differently, thus increasing the difficulty of 
family reunification.  Of particular concern, they said, is 
the GOB's reported refusal to accept those designated as 
"criminals."  A person can be classified as a "criminal" in 
Bhutan without ever having been charged with a crime, they 
asserted, let alone convicted.  Anyone perceived as having 
pursued "anti-national activities," such as participating in 
a political rally, could fall into that category.  (Note: 
Most of the camp secretaries apparently spent some time in 
jail in Bhutan for political activism.  End note.)  Even if 
the children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews of those 
deemed "criminals" are allowed to return, they might well be 
barred from enrolling in school, according to T.B. Gurung, 
Secretary at Khudunabari Camp, since enrollment requires a 
 
SIPDIS 
certificate of "no objection" from the local authorities. 
Some of his relatives still in Bhutan are unable to enroll 
their children in school because of his earlier political 
activism, Gurung noted. 
 
------------------------------- 
APPEAL TO KEEP UP THE PRESSURE 
------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  The Government of Nepal is anxious to achieve a 
settlement and thus unlikely to raise these issues during 
negotiation of the agreement, the delegation said.  The 
refugees thus must depend on "influential" third countries 
like the US to maintain pressure on the GOB to offer 
returnees as equitable and humane treatment as possible.  In 
particular, they stressed, the refugees want reinstatement of 
their former property, reinstatement of their lost 
citizenship, and GOB agreement to allow UNHCR monitoring of 
repatriation and resettlement within Bhutan.  Poloff thanked 
the delegation for their presentation and assured them of USG 
interest in the matter.  Noting our limited engagement with 
the GOB, poloff urged the delegation to contact other local 
diplomatic and aid missions, such as the Swiss and the EU, 
that provide significant aid to Bhutan.  The delegation did 
not inquire about prospects for third-country resettlement. 
 
-------- 
COMMENT 
-------- 
 
¶7.  (C)  The Governments of Nepal and Bhutan, we have been 
told by the Nepalese Foreign Secretary, have agreed to send a 
bilateral team soon to the camps to brief the refugees on the 
content of the agreement (Ref A).  In the meantime, however, 
news--most of it apparently accurate--of the agreement has 
leaked to the community, leaving them to draw their own 
conclusions regarding its implementation.  The concerns they 
raise are valid, as is, we believe, their fear that these 
awkward questions are being swept under the carpet in the two 
governments' haste to conclude an agreement.  The Government 
of Nepal has already indicated to us that the GOB has not 
budged on its objection to UNHCR involvement in the 
repatriation process within Bhutan.  The Embassy believes it 
important that the USG and donor countries continue to 
impress upon the GOB the need to resolve this long-standing 
problem as fairly and expeditiously as possible. 
MALINOWSKI