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 KATHMANDU 000715 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR SA/INS 
LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY 
GENEVA FOR RMA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/20/2013 
TAGS: PREF PHUM NP CH
SUBJECT: NEPAL: 21 TIBETANS DETAINED ON IMMIGRATION CHARGES 
 
Classified By: DCM Robert K. Boggs for reasons 1.5 (b,d) 
 
¶1.  (C) Summary: Twenty-one Tibetan refugees, including 
eleven minors, were detained by Nepal's Department of 
Immigration (DOI) on April 15.  In an apparent toughening of 
rhetoric, the Home Secretary was "quite adamant" in an April 
17 meeting with Office of Tibet Representative Wangchuk 
Tsering that the group would be returned to China.  However, 
 
SIPDIS 
eighteen of the refugees have been fined, and will be 
required to serve jail terms ranging from three to ten months 
if they cannot pay.  The three youngest refugees (six to nine 
years of age) will be released into the custody of UNHCR. 
The GON has not informed UNHCR of any change in policy toward 
Tibetans, but the latest arrests are part of a series of 
incidents that violate the unwritten "gentleman's agreement" 
governing the travel of Tibetans through Nepal to India. 
Tibetan leaders have blamed the less tolerant attitude of the 
Nepal Government on growing pressure from Beijing.  End 
summary. 
 
¶2.  (U) A group of twenty-one Tibetan refugees, including 
eleven minors, was arrested by GON authorities near Kathmandu 
on April 15.  The undocumented refugees crossed into Nepal on 
foot via Nangpa-La (a 17,000-foot pass in the Everest region) 
then took a bus to the capital.  They were arrested at the 
Thankot police checkpoint, about 10 miles from Kathmandu, and 
immediately handed over to the Department of Immigration. 
Eighteen members of the group have been jailed, pending 
payment of approximately 100 USD each in fines and visa fees. 
 Failing payment, the refugees will be required to serve a 
prison term of 10 months.  (Note: One thirteen-year-old boy 
was given a half-fine, reducing his total required payment to 
70 USD and his total possible prison term to 3 months. End 
note.)  The three youngest members of the group (two 
six-year-olds and a nine-year-old) will be released into 
UNHCR custody.  Their parents were not among those detained. 
 
¶3.  (C) Office of Tibet Representative Wangchuk Tsering told 
PolOff on April 17 that the Home Secretary had been "quite 
adamant" that the refugees would be returned to China, 
despite an informal agreement with UNHCR to allow Tibetans to 
transit to India.   According to Tsering, the Home Secretary 
claimed that "thousands" of Tibetans would flood the country 
if the current UNHCR-administered process were allowed to 
continue. 
 
¶4.  (C) UNHCR Protection Officer Giulia Ranawat said that her 
office was pursuing the matter, and would seek a 
clarification of the GON's current policy toward Tibetans 
traveling to India.  "We have not received any notification 
from the government of any change in policy, but they seem to 
be arresting and fining people quite frequently," she said. 
"We will be pressing them to find out if the procedure has 
changed."  Ranawat indicated that UNHCR had not yet been 
granted the opportunity to interview the refugees to 
determine if they are persons of concern, but said that her 
office had "valid reasons to assume" that they would be. 
 
¶5.  (C) Comment:  The Home Secretary's concern about 
"thousands" of Tibetans flooding Nepal on their way to the 
UNHCR Reception Center is specious.  The number of refugees 
processed by UNHCR has declined in the past few years to 
under 1500 per annum, and those who do enter Nepal are 
escorted out to India, primarily for free schooling in 
Dharamsala.  The system has worked well for thirteen years, 
but Tibetan leaders have reported increased pressure by the 
Chinese Government on Nepal to crack down on Tibetan 
immigrants.  Post will continue to work with UNHCR and the 
Office of Tibet to determine if the so-called "gentleman's 
agreement" has been abandoned by the GON, and what the 
ramifications of such a decision would be for Tibetans, who 
will likely continue to seek a way to join the Tibetan 
community in India whether a protective agreement is in place 
or not. 
 
MALINOWSKI