This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 GENEVA 002655 
 
SIPDIS 
 
USEU FOR MEZNAR, USUN FOR MALY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PREL EAID AF PK IR UNHCR
SUBJECT: UNHCR: EXCOM CABLE #8:  MEETING ON AFGHAN REFUGEES 
ENCOURAGES CONTINUED INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT 
 
REF: GENEVA 2465 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  This cable provides a readout of an 
October 7 meeting in Geneva on the situation of Afghan 
refugees in Iraq and Pakistan.  The meeting occurred, and the 
cable was drafted, before the October earthquake in Kashmir. 
At this time, it is still unclear what ramifications, if any, 
that natural disaster will have on Pakistan's position with 
regard to Afghan refugees -- or on UNHCR's refugee-focused 
programs in Pakistan.  Representatives from Afghanistan, 
Pakistan, Iran, the U.S., other interested countries, UNHCR 
and other international organizations met October 7 to 
discuss ongoing efforts to care for Afghan refugees in Iran 
and Pakistan and to facilitate their orderly and voluntary 
return and reintegration.  PRM Acting A/S Rich Greene praised 
the generosity of host countries and urged continued 
patience.  UN High Commissioner for Refugees Guterres 
stressed the need for donors and international organizations 
(IOs) to integrate refugee assistance with development goals. 
 The Iranian delegation announced it would offer work visas 
for 200,000 Afghans and pledged to work closely with the 
Afghan government.  The Pakistani delegation gave a more 
hard-line speech rejecting local integration as a durable 
solution, although they evinced more flexibility in private 
discussions.  Pakistan is still negotiating with UNHCR 
regarding refugee registration modalities.  The meeting 
served to mobilize donors and major humanitarian and 
development agencies, especially UNHCR and UNDP, to stay 
engaged.  Participants agreed that a follow-on meeting should 
occur next year only if tangible progress had been made on 
development, reintegration, and registration.  End summary. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Meeting Goals and Attendance 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶2. (U) PRM Acting Assistant Secretary Richard L. Greene 
opened the Geneva consultations by highlighting the major 
achievements in Afghanistan over the last four years: two 
successful nationwide elections, significant improvements in 
infrastructure and health, and the voluntary return of over 
four million Afghan refugees.  He then outlined the day,s 
primary goals: (1) to maintain international support for the 
continued repatriation and reintegration of Afghan refugees; 
(2) to ensure the sustainability of returns by improving 
conditions for returnees in Afghanistan; (3) to encourage 
international support for development in refugee-impacted 
areas of Pakistan; (4) to work toward normalizing population 
movement in and out of Afghanistan; and (5) to support a 
registration of Afghans currently living in Pakistan.  He 
both introduced and concluded his remarks by thanking the 
refugee-hosting countries for their great sacrifices in 
caring for millions of Afghan refugees for well over two 
decades.  He asked the countries, as well as the refugees 
themselves, to maintain their patience, however.  While the 
pace of returns has been staggering -- the largest refugee 
return in UNHCR history -- it will still take some time 
before the situation is fully resolved.  In the meantime, he 
encouraged countries to continue to work with one another to 
come to agreements on refugee support, repatriation, 
registration, and movement. 
 
¶3. (U) In his opening address, UN High Commissioner for 
Refugees Antonio Guterres said a major goal for the following 
months would be to effectively integrate refugees into 
Afghanistan,s overall national development.  In view of both 
their numbers and importance, displaced people should be 
taken into account within the so-called "Kabul Process" -- 
the successor to the "Bonn Process" for Afghanistan,s 
development that concluded with the recent parliamentary 
elections.  In highlighting the points initially raised by 
A/S Greene in his opening statement, HC Guterres said he 
understood the challenge of integrating Afghans into 
development proposals within Pakistan and Iran.  (Note: 
Despite recent polling showing that only a minority of 
Afghans in Pakistan intend to repatriate in the near future, 
the GoP insists that the 2.6 million Afghans currently on its 
soil should return to Afghanistan.  End note.)  Guterres 
stressed the importance of acknowledging the reality of 
population movement, even if that reality appears 
unpalatable.  He cited the example of Geneva itself: although 
Guterres,s native Portugal has not recently experienced 
civil war, thousands of his fellow citizens currently reside 
in the Swiss city.  Planners must acknowledge the fact that 
people migrate for multiple reasons, even long after the 
conflicts that initially launched them have ended.  The High 
Commissioner concluded his remarks by thanking Iran and 
Pakistan for their ongoing support of Afghan refugees, and by 
acknowledging Afghanistan,s hard work to bring its citizens 
home. 
¶4. (SBU) In discussions prior to the consultations, UNHCR 
told PRM that a major purpose of the meetings was to 
demonstrate to the governments of Pakistan and Iran that the 
world remained engaged in the Afghan situation.  UNHCR 
believes this is important in order to ensure that the two 
governments continue to cooperate with each other, as well as 
Afghanistan and the world community.  From this perspective, 
the conference appeared to be a success. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - 
Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan 
- - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶5. (U) Following the introduction to the meetings by 
co-chairs PRM and UNHCR, the floor was given to Afghanistan 
and its two neighbors.  The head of the Iranian delegation, 
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Gholam Ali Khoshroo began 
by noting that more than 1.3 million Afghan refugees had 
returned to their homeland from Iran since April of 2002. 
While a further 200,000 returns had been predicted this year, 
he acknowledged that the numbers had lagged (50,000 have 
returned so far).  Khoshroo applauded the work of the 
International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the 
International Labor Organization (ILO) in researching the 
causes of migration and dislocation in South Asia.  Their 
work showed, he said, that most Afghans in Iran are now 
economic migrants rather than refugees fleeing political or 
natural disasters.  Durable solutions must be found for true 
refugees, and new modalities must be worked out to govern 
economic migration.  Khoshroo declared that the government of 
Iran (GoI) will issue working visas to 200,000 Afghans, under 
the condition that only the head of household may remain in 
Iran, and other family members must return to Afghanistan. 
In a short concluding statement later in the afternoon, the 
Iranian delegation pledged to continue working with UNHCR, 
its neighbors, and international donors to find solutions in 
the best interests of the Afghans. 
 
¶6. (SBU) According to a delegate who was sitting in the dais 
with a direct view of the Iranian delegation, there appeared 
to be some disagreement between the Iranians before Khoshroo 
issued his concluding statement.  The Iranian permanent 
representative in Geneva exchanged some heated words with 
Khoshroo then left the room while Khoshroo issued the brief 
concluding statement.  According to the UNHCR delegate, the 
skirmish likely centered on how conciliatory Iran should be 
in its closing statement.  With a new government in office, 
he said, the Iranians still appeared to be in the process of 
sorting out their official policy.  The permrep may have been 
arguing for a firmer statement insisting that Afghans must 
return to Iran, similar to the Pakistani concluding statement 
(see below). 
 
¶7. (U) The Afghan delegation was led by Minister for Refugees 
and Repatriation Mohammad Azam Dadfar.  (Note: Foreign 
Minister Abdullah Abdullah, who was originally scheduled to 
head the delegation, flew back to Kabul for a discussion of 
NATO expansion in Afghanistan.  End note.)  Dadfar began his 
remarks by noting Afghanistan,s recent accession to the 1951 
Refugee Convention.  He thanked his neighbors, the Iranians 
and the Pakistanis, for their continued assistance in hosting 
Afghan refugees, as well as the USG, UNHCR, and the European 
Commission (EC) for planning and hosting the discussions. 
Dadfar noted that real progress has been made in the last 
several years: 4.25 million refugees had returned, and he 
hoped to "eliminate the word IDP from Afghanistan,s 
dictionary by the end of 2006."  Minister Dadfar concluded by 
emphasizing Afghanistan,s continued need for development 
assistance, particularly to ensure the sustainability of 
refugee returns.  He strongly supported HC Guterres,s 
contention that displaced populations must be made a major 
plank of the Kabul Process. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The head of the Pakistani delegation, Secretary 
Sajid Hussain Chattha of the States and Frontiers Division 
(SAFRON), emphasized the need for continued large-scale 
repatriation and development of refugee-affected areas within 
Pakistan.  Unlike the February Afghan conference in Brussels 
(reftel), where the Pakistani delegation accepted that 
significant numbers of Afghans may stay in Pakistan for a 
"temporary" period, Chattha in Geneva made no such statement. 
 This was especially notable in his blunt closing statement, 
where he insisted that Pakistan was not prepared to accept a 
long-term Afghan presence on its soil.  Now is not the time, 
he said, to discuss local integration; Pakistan has been 
hosting its "brothers" for well over two decades, but the 
Afghans remaining in Pakistan are now economic migrants, and 
the time has come for them to return home.  Chattha spoke of 
the importance of providing development funding to 
refugee-affected areas of Pakistan, and thanked UNHCR for its 
work in conducting a needs assessment.  But he did not 
acknowledge a central premise of UNHCR in conducting the 
assessment: that it would look at the needs of both Afghan 
and Pakistani communities.  Instead, Chattha spoke as if the 
entire purpose was to assist a post-Afghan Pakistan. 
 
¶9. (SBU) In a bilateral meeting with the USG delegation prior 
to the start of the conference, Chattha appeared somewhat 
less dogmatic, acknowledging that some Afghans would likely 
remain in Pakistan past the end of the Tripartite Agreement. 
In particular, he noted the longstanding historical linkages 
among Pashtuns on both sides of the border, and said that 
certain kinds of migration and labor movement were to be 
expected.  He welcomed the work being done by IOM to look 
into possible future means of managing the migration.  In 
terms of numbers, however, he spoke in terms of "some 
thousands" rather than the million or more Afghans recent 
research suggests will likely seek to stay in Pakistan. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Chattha also spoke of the GoP,s plans to conduct a 
registration of Afghan refugees, as a follow-on to the census 
completed earlier this year.  The purpose of the registration 
is to collect precise information on Afghans in Pakistan, 
while providing Afghans with some legal document entitling 
them to temporary employment and health care in Pakistan. 
While UNHCR, the GoA, and the GoP all agree on the need for a 
registration, UNHCR and the GoA disagree with Pakistan over 
the appropriate validity period of the identity documents to 
be provided to Afghans.  The GoP insists the documents should 
only have a two-year validity period -- i.e., through 2008, 
assuming the registration occurs as planned in 2006.  The GoA 
insists on a five-year validity period, while UNHCR is 
publicly calling for an indefinite validity period.  In 
private discussions after the conference ended, UNHCR 
delegates told PRM that they are willing to accept a 
five-year validity period, but are having no luck budging the 
Pakistani position.  UNHCR plans to draft an MOU to the GoP 
pushing for a five-year validity period as a condition for 
receiving UNHCR assistance in funding and planning the 
registration.  They expect the GoP to initially reject these 
terms, and believe that the negotiations will ultimately have 
to go to President Musharraf before a decision will be made. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - 
International organizations and donors 
- - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶11. (U) Following the statements of the three regional 
countries, the floor was opened to the other delegations. 
The first to speak was Heino Marius of the European 
Commission, which had co-hosted the Brussels consultations in 
February.  Marius said that the EC is currently putting 
together a plan for its 2007-2013 funding priorities that 
would concentrate heavily on assistance in northern and 
northeastern areas of Afghanistan where large numbers of 
refugees had returned.  Following the EC, most of the 
delegations made brief statements outlining their previous 
work in Afghanistan and committing to remain involved.  Donor 
countries included Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, 
Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, 
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. 
 
¶12. (U) A number of international organizations also spoke at 
the consultations.  The World Bank,s intervention was most 
notable for declining to support the refugee-affected areas 
program being mooted by Pakistan and UNHCR.  The World Bank 
representative at the consultations, Joseph Ingram, said the 
Bank fully supported the stabilization of Afghanistan and its 
neighbors, but was looking to do so with alternative 
livelihoods programs and its own development programs.  While 
Ingram said the World Bank in principle supports the 
normalization of Afghan labor in Pakistan and Iran, setting 
its parameters is the responsibility of the three countries 
and bilateral donors. 
 
¶13. (U) A more positive statement was delivered by James 
Rawley of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 
which, despite earlier concerns about working at 
cross-purposes with UNHCR, pledged to collaborate closely 
with its sister UN agency on a needs assessment for 
refugee-affected areas in Pakistan.  Other international 
organizations speaking at the consultations included IOM, 
ILO, and the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan 
(UNAMA).  Both IOM and ILO emphasized their work in 
researching Afghan migration and labor patterns in 
neighboring countries.  (Note: These two organizations, along 
with the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU) have 
received funding from the EC to examine labor migration in 
and around Afghanistan.)  UNAMA was represented by Filippo 
Grandi, in his last appearance in that organization before 
beginning his new job as Deputy Commissioner General at the 
United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).  He fully 
endorsed the goal of including displaced Afghans within the 
overall development plans of the "Kabul Process." 
 
- - - - - - 
Comments 
- - - - - - 
 
¶14. (U) Once the Tripartite Agreements between UNHCR, 
Afghanistan, and Iran and Pakistan expire -- currently 
scheduled for March and December, respectively, of 2006 -- 
the legal and logistical framework under which millions of 
Afghans living outside of Afghanistan are currently regulated 
will have to be reconsidered.  The consultations in Geneva 
represented an initial effort at coming to terms with several 
basic issues that will have to be broached: under what 
circumstances will Afghans be allowed to continue to reside 
in Pakistan and Iran; under what circumstance and how will 
they be able to cross borders; what assistance will be 
provided for communities and areas long inhabited by 
refugees; and, more generally, how will the international 
community transition its assistance in South Asia from relief 
to reconstruction?  Several areas of agreement emerged from 
the consultations.  Assisted repatriation should remain the 
preferred option for Afghans, and all stakeholders should 
continue to facilitate their voluntary and gradual return to 
Afghanistan.  Development should be ramped up in Afghanistan, 
especially in areas of high return, to ensure the 
sustainability of continued refugee repatriation.  Donors 
should continue to support research exploring migration and 
labor movement across Afghanistan,s borders so that 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran can agree on a suitable means 
of regulating their shared borders.  And the needs of 
returning refugees must be a key element of the Kabul Process. 
 
¶15. (SBU) From UNHCR,s and our perspective, the meeting 
succeeded in demonstrating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran 
that the world remains engaged in the Afghan refugee issue. 
Although Chattha bristled noticeably in his concluding 
remarks at the idea -- put forward by several speakers at the 
consultations -- that local integration in Pakistan will need 
to be considered as a durable solution for some Afghans, all 
three delegations made noticeable efforts to strike 
conciliatory tones with one another.  (This was probably due 
in no small part to the fact that UNHCR helped draft the 
remarks of both the Pakistani and Afghan delegations.)  The 
consultations left some issues unresolved, however.  There 
remains disagreement between UNHCR, Afghanistan, and Pakistan 
over the validity period for a proposed registration of 
Afghans in Pakistan; until the issue is resolved, UNHCR will 
not seek any funding for the registration.  And although 
UNHCR and UNDP are collaborating on a needs assessment in 
refugee-impacted areas of Pakistan, it is far from clear that 
donors will provide significant support.  From the Pakistani 
perspective, the consultations may not have been entirely 
successful. 
 
¶16. (SBU) The USG should continue in the near term to support 
gradual and voluntary repatriation of Afghan refugees with 
UNHCR assistance.  The pace of returns continues to be the 
highest in the world, with over 500,000 refugees expected to 
return next year.  In the meantime, refugee returns should be 
made an integral part of the Kabul process: efforts should be 
made to assess and address returnee needs in the areas of 
shelter, health care, education, sanitation, and livelihoods. 
 In Pakistan, we should work with UNHCR to help convince the 
GoP to accept a longer validity period for Afghan 
registration documents.  Working to include refugee-affected 
areas within our development programs would help make this 
longer period more palatable to the Pakistanis.  The general 
message for all parties should be that they must continue to 
exercise patience with a steady, but gradual, pace of 
returns.  End Comment. 
Moley