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 02 KATHMANDU 002281 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SA/INS, PRM: MPITOTTI AND JLEADER, GENEVA FOR 
PLYNCH, LONDON FOR POL/GURNEY, NSC FOR MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/20/2013 
TAGS: PREF BH NP
SUBJECT: NEPAL: LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION OFFERS TO PROVIDE 
OVERSIGHT FOR BHUTANESE REFUGEE REPATRIATION 
 
REF: KATHMANDU 2150 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Michael E. Malinowski for Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
-------- 
Summary 
-------- 
 
¶1. (C) A Geneva-based representative of The Lutheran World 
Federation, Peter Prove, has suggested that the faith-based 
organization could provide third-party monitoring of the 
repatriation of Bhutanese refugees from Eastern Nepal to 
Bhutan.  Prove also advocated that the donor governments hold 
an international conference to find a durable solution to the 
refugee problem.  He worried that the GON would pressure 
refugees to return to Bhutan despite their concerns about 
conditions of repatriation and was concerned about 
radicalization of the refugee population absent clarification 
of these conditions.  With only three months left until 
repatriation begins, Post believes an international 
conference, that includes all donor governments, Nepal and 
Bhutan, is timely and necessary.  End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
Lutheran World Federation as Third-Party Monitor? 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶2. (C) On November 20, PolOff met with Peter Prove, Assistant 
to the General Secretary for International Affairs and Human 
Rights of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) based in 
Geneva.  Accompanying Prove was Ratan Gazmere, a Bhutanese 
refugee leader and human rights activist.  Prove reported 
that the Danish Ambassador, in a meeting with the LWF in 
Geneva, had suggested that the faith-based organization 
consider a role in the oversight of refugee repatriation from 
Eastern Nepal to Bhutan.  Consequently, LWF decided to send 
feelers out to donor governments to determine whether there 
is interest in LWF's involvement.  Prove commented that LWF 
has significant refugee experience.  For example, LWF, with 
UNHCR, was responsible for the maintenance and repatriation 
of refugees in Mozambique and Angola, he said.  Prove also 
suggested that LWF is uniquely situated to assist with 
third-country resettlement because of their presence in many 
western countries, including the U.S., Canada and Australia. 
However, he said, LWF is somewhat reluctant to pursue the 
Danish proposal since reporting back to other governments on 
conditions inside Bhutan "would take us out of our comfort 
zone." 
 
¶3. (C) Ratan Gazmere opined that the refugees would feel more 
comfortable with LWF acting as international monitor, absent 
UNHCR, than some of the other U.N. organizations already 
present in Thimpu.  Since UNDP and WFP were working in Bhutan 
in 1989-1990 when the refugees were expelled, the refugees do 
not trust these organizations to look after the refugees' 
best interests, he said.  (Comment: We have heard similar 
concerns expressed by refugees in Khudunabari Camp.  End 
Comment) 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
International Conference to Find Durable Solution 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶4. (C) Prove also inquired about U.S. interest in an 
international conference, a proposal first raised by a group 
of NGOs, including LWF and Human Rights Watch, in September, 
following their visit to Nepal.  The aim of the conference, 
he said, would be to bring all parties together to discuss 
repatriation to Bhutan and local resettlement in Nepal, as 
well as third-country resettlement.  Agreeing that such a 
conference would need Indian and Bhutanese participation, 
Prove believed the USG would provide the strongest leadership 
for such an event.  He mentioned that a group of Bhutan's 
donors were meeting with the Royal Government of Bhutan 
(RGOB) in Thimpu to urge it to provide citizenship 
unconditionally to Category II refugees, i.e., those who the 
RGOB say departed Bhutan voluntarily. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
LWF Concerns:  GON Pressure to Repatriate; 
Radicalization of Refugees 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶5. (C) Both Prove and Gazmere expressed concern that 
repatriation of Khudunabari Camp residents in February 2004 
would not be fully voluntary.  Gazmere reported that the 
Government of Nepal (GON) had already begun to verbally 
pressure the Bhutanese refugee leadership to agree to return 
to Bhutan despite their concerns over conditions there. 
Refugee leaders are worried that some might feel compelled to 
return to Bhutan because they feel they are not welcome in 
Nepal, he said. 
 
¶6. (C) Prove was also fearful that segments of the refugee 
population will resort to more radical measures if neither 
the RGOB nor the GON satisfy the refugees' concerns, 
particularly over citizenship and property holdings.  The 
proliferation of "liberation" organizations, including one 
self-titled Marxist-Leninist group, supports this fear, he 
said.  Gazmere concurred that some of the refugees, 
particularly the large and idle youth population, have become 
increasingly discontented with their current status.  Prove 
was surprised that the RGOB and Government of India appeared 
to be unconcerned with the potentially "explosive" refugee 
situation. 
 
--------- 
Comment 
--------- 
 
¶7. (C) Post believes it worthwhile to consider The Lutheran 
World Federation as a third-party monitor for repatriation. 
The organization has significant experience in refugee issues 
and is trusted by the refugees themselves.  However, because 
it is a Christian faith-based organization, the RGOB might 
balk at allowing the organization free access to areas 
outside Thimpu. 
 
¶8.  (C) Comment Continued: Less than three months remain 
before repatriation of Khudunabari Camp residents begins. 
However, the majority of the refugees have indicated that 
they will not return to Bhutan under existing conditions 
(reftel).  While donor pressure in Thimpu might help clarify 
these conditions, an international conference, as proposed by 
NGO advocates, could identify more comprehensive solutions to 
the Bhutanese refugee problem.  The recommendations of such a 
conference would have more weight, of course, if all of 
Bhutan's donors participate, including India and the World 
Bank.  The conference would also need to set a clear 
objective -- to find a home for all refugees, whether that be 
in Nepal, Bhutan or in third countries.  With all parties 
accepting responsibility for the refugees' welfare, pressure 
on the RGOB would ease and perhaps pave the way for a durable 
and lasting solution.  End Comment. 
 
MALINOWSKI