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 001606 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM: RMACKLER 
LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY, NSC FOR MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/21/2013 
TAGS: PREF PREL BH NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: BHUTAN'S COMMITMENT TO REPATRIATE REFUGEES 
QUESTIONED 
 
Classified By: DCM Robert K. Boggs for reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
¶1. (C) Summary.  The postponement of the 15th Nepal-Bhutan 
Joint Ministerial originally scheduled for August 11-15 has 
led many Bhutanese refugee leaders to become increasingly 
doubtful of the Royal Government of Bhutan's commitment to 
repatriate the refugees.  UNHCR field director John Andrew 
reported that rumors in the refugee camps abound that it will 
take the GON and RGOB several more ministerials before 
refugees begin to return to Bhutan.  On the other hand, 
Nepal's Foreign Secretary Madhu Raman Acharya suggested that 
the Ministerial will be held September 8-11 and, although the 
repatriation may be delayed, the refugees will return home. 
Acharya also reported that the RGOB would issue Category II 
refugees (those who must re-apply for citizenship) with 
identification cards valid for the two-year probationary 
period.  In a public statement made August 24, Acharya said 
the GON would push for inclusion of UNHCR in the repatriation 
process.  UNHCR has indicated that roughly 2 percent of 
Khundunabari camp residents, who may not be legitimate 
Bhutanese citizens, have begun to depart quietly from the 
camp.  End Summary. 
 
------------------------------------------- 
Government of Nepal: Feeling the Pressure 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (C) In a recent meeting, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
Secretary Madhu Raman Acharya said that although the 
 
SIPDIS 
Government of Nepal (GON) supports a role for UNHCR in the 
repatriation process, the GON is not willing to "create a 
deadlock over this issue."  However, on August 24, Acharya 
made a public statement suggesting that the GON would push 
the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) to accept a role for 
UNHCR in the repatriation process.  UNHCR "has the expertise 
in logistics and technical matters which will be helpful in 
the repatriation and reintegration of the refugees in 
Bhutan," he said.  Acharya suggested that the 15th 
Ministerial, scheduled to take place in Thimpu from August 
11-15, was postponed because the Bhutanese (Druk) National 
Assembly was still in session.  On August 24, he stated 
publicly that the Ministerial has been rescheduled for 
September 8-11. 
 
¶3. (C) Acharya agreed that the RGOB had not provided 
sufficient guarantees for returning refugees and noted that 
conditions for return did not seem ideal.  He reported that 
the RGOB had agreed to establish a reception/transit center 
in Bhutan near the western border to receive the refugees. 
He assured us that the center would not become a camp to 
house returning refugees.  The reception center would process 
incoming refugees, who will be issued papers and special 
identification cards valid for the two-year probationary 
period, he said.  Acharya caveated that, however, saying only 
refugees with land and property will be able to return 
because the RGOB is not prepared to provide land to the 
landless.  (Note.  Many Bhutanese refugee activists in Nepal 
have complained that the RGOB has systematically and 
deliberately seized the refugees' land holdings, razed houses 
and allowed Bhutanese from the north and east to settle on 
their property.  End Note.) 
 
¶4. (C) Acharya could not answer concerns of whether the 
refugees will be provided with employment opportunities.  He 
was also suspicious of the RGOB's asseration that the "labor 
camps" reported in the press are not intended for the 
refugees.  Acharya was concerned that the Bhutanese 
government's negative attitude toward returning refugees and 
the restrictive legal conditions placed on Bhutanese citizens 
would discourage repatriation.  (Note.  Bhutan's citizenship 
law significantly restricts emigration, marriage to 
non-Bhutanese, and political, religious and cultural 
freedoms.  End Note.) Moreover, members of the Bhutanese 
National Assembly have stated clearly that they disapprove of 
the King's decision to allow any refugees to return to 
Bhutan, he said. 
 
¶5. (C) Acharya emphasized that the GON continues to insist 
that the RGOB liberalize the criteria for Category II 
refugees (Bhutanese who voluntarily departed).  He said that 
the two governments originally had, in fact, agreed to use 
six types of documentation for verification purposes, 
including land ownership and taxation papers.  The RGOB, 
however, subsequently refused to use all but one document, 
namely the citizenship card.  Acharya cited 375 cases in 
which refugees provided what he believed were convincing 
verbal accounts of forceful departure from Bhutan.  However, 
these refugees did not have their citizenship cards and were, 
therefore, refused Category I status.  Acharya reported that 
the GON had convinced the RGOB to determine Category IV 
statis (alleged criminals) on an individual rather than 
family basis in order to avoid categorizing children as 
criminals.  He admitted that the two governments still must 
discuss issues of third party monitoring as well as 
relaxation of Bhutan's touch citizenship requirements. 
Acharya suggested that the GON might take advantage of 
international pressure on the RGOB to persuade the Bhutanese 
to cooperate on these issues. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
Refugee Leaders Dismayed over Delays and Lack of Guarantees 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶6. (C) Meanwhile, Bhutanese refugee community leaders have 
expressed strong frustration with the delay of the 15th 
Ministerial and are worried that the refugees are becoming 
increasingly despondent regarding repatriation.  The refugee 
leaders also raised their concerns that conditions in Bhutan 
will not be favorable for returnees.  Specifically, they cite 
Bhutan's antiquated citizenship law as a major hindrance to 
successful repatriation.  In addition to requiring applicants 
to speak and write Bhutanese, reside in Bhutan for 20 years, 
and "observe all the customs and traditions of the people of 
Bhutan," the citizenship law requires that applicants also 
own land, they said.  However, the RGOB has deliberately 
resettled Eastern and Northern Bhutanese on many refugee 
properties over the past three years.  Additional 
restrictions include the requirement that non-citizens have a 
"No Objection Certificate" issued by the central government 
in order to access social services, such as education and 
health facilities, as well as for gaining lawful employment. 
Also, according to the refugee leaders, Southern Bhutanese 
have no freedom of movement in Bhutan; they must register 
with local government officials when traveling anywhere 
inside the country.  Despite these conditions, refugee 
leaders believe at least half of Category II refugees will 
choose to return to Bhutan. 
 
¶7. (C) The refugee leaders were also concerned that 
increasing discontent within the young adult population in 
the camps in eastern Nepal is leading to the formation of 
radical and reactionary groups.  One community activist 
reported that, in April, a group of camp residents formed the 
Bhutan Communist Party and claimed that the group now has at 
least 700 members.  However, he did not believe the group has 
ties with external insurgents, such as the Bhutan Gorkha 
Liberation Front or Nepal's Maoists.  The Bhutan Communist 
Party, he said, focuses its attention against the Bhutanese 
King and against India for alleged imperialistic practices in 
Bhutan. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
UNHCR: Repatriation Unlikely For Several More Months 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶8. (C) Separately, UNHCR field director John Andrew reported 
that rumors now abound in the camps that the 15th Joint 
Ministerial will not finalize details for the repatriation of 
Khundunabari Camp refugees and that it will take several more 
Joint Ministerials, well into next year, before repatriation 
begins.  Andrew had also received information from 
Khundunabari Camp residents that many families have begun to 
depart quietly.  Some of these families are believed to be 
non-Bhutanese, while some legitimate Bhutanese are leaving in 
hopes of finding better opportunities elsewhere.  Two 
Bhutanese community leaders, Gharima Adhikari and Ratan 
Gazmere, who had recently traveled to New Delhi to meet with 
donor governments, left India with the impression that the 
donor embassies were critical of the refugees as if "they did 
not have a right to return," he said.  Andrew felt that 
perhaps it is necessary to sensitize other donor embassies in 
New Delhi to the Bhutanese refugee issue. 
 
-------- 
Comment 
-------- 
 
¶9. (C) Both the GON and RGOB appear to be feeling growing 
pressure from donor governments to ensure that Khundunabari 
Camp refugees are repatriated in accordance with 
international norms.  The postponement of the 15th Joint 
Ministerial could be in reaction to this pressure as both 
governments begin to address the concerns raised by the 
international community.  As such, there may be some 
legitimacy to the rumors that several more months are needed 
to finish laying the groundwork for repatriation.  On the 
other hand, there is no evidence that the RGOB has softened 
in the least its adamant refusal to admit outside monitors of 
the repatriation.  Embassy will continue to work with UNHCR 
and others to assess the RGOB's intentions and measures to 
prepare for the return of the refugees.  End Comment. 
 
 
MALINOWSKI