VZCZCXYZ0029
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKT #0894/01 0941225
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 041225Z APR 06
FM AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0989
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 4138
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 0339
RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO PRIORITY 4408
RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN PRIORITY 0305
RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA PRIORITY 9492
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 2385
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 3791
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 9483
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 0217
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE PRIORITY 0280
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 0741
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1100
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L KATHMANDU 000894 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR SCA/INS, PRM 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/04/2016 
TAGS: PREF IN NP JA AS BT
SUBJECT: AMBASSADOR DISCUSSES BHUTANESE REFUGEES WITH 
AUSTRALIAN AND JAPANESE COUNTERPARTS 
 
REF: KATHMANDU 836 
 
Classified By: Ambassador James F. Moriarty. Reasons 1.4 (b/d). 
 
Australia and Japan Interested in 
Bhutanese Refugee Issue 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶1. (C) On April 3, Australian Ambassador Graeme Lade and 
Japanese Ambassador Tsutomu Hiraoka separately met with the 
Ambassador to discuss the Bhutanese refugee issue.  While 
neither the Australians nor the Japanese could immediately 
agree to the idea of a joint approach with the Danes and 
Norwegians to Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey on 
internationalizing the Bhutanese refugee issue (reftel), both 
stated they would consult with their capitals, and expressed 
continued interest in finding a durable solution for the 
Bhutanese refugees. 
 
Australia Likely To Resettle Refugees 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (C) According to Ambassador Lade, Australia had wanted to 
finalize its Bhutanese refugee policy in advance of the March 
core group meeting in Geneva, but events elsewhere in the 
world had prevented this.  Ambassador Lade expected Canberra 
to set policy on Bhutan soon, and noted it was likely that 
Australia would be willing to accept a number of Bhutanese 
refugees for resettlement as they tended to be well educated, 
spoke good English, and were generally easier to settle than 
other refugee groups.  Even if Australia were unable to 
participate in a joint meeting with Foreign Minister Pandey, 
Ambassador Lade was confident that he could call on the 
Foreign Minister individually to stress similar points, as 
the GOA was increasingly convinced that internationalization 
may be the best way forward.  However, he noted that he was 
still having difficulty getting Canberra to understand why 
local integration of refugees was not the best option.  He 
stated that Former Prime Minister Deuba had told him that 
Nepal would have to change its constitution to allow the 
refugees to become citizens, and as it was unlikely that 
would happen, he was urging Canberra to support third-country 
resettlement of most of the refugees.  He explained that he 
expected Australia to become more engaged on the issue, 
acknowledging that, while Australians had attended core group 
meetings in the past, to date they had tended to take a back 
seat. 
 
Japan Wonders What "Internationalization" Means 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶3. (C) Ambassador Hiraoka questioned what 
"internationalization" entailed.  He could not recall an 
example of a similar ad hoc conference and noted that, 
depending on the forum, a different MOFA bureau in Tokyo 
would be responsible for the issue.  He wondered what Japan 
would be asked to do, pointing out that it would be difficult 
for Japan to accept refugees, and that he believed 
resettlement countries generally bore the full expense of 
resettling the refugees.  The Ambassador responded that 
accepting refugees for resettlement was only one way to help 
the process, and noted there were other ways that Japan could 
be helpful as the internationalization process evolved.  The 
Ambassador stressed the urgency of moving ahead as the 
security situation surrounding the camps deteriorated. 
 
Need To Involve India 
--------------------- 
 
¶4. (C) Ambassadors Lade and Hiraoka both commented that their 
New Delhi Embassies had the lead on Bhutan.  Ambassador 
Hiraoka explained that the Japanese Embassy in New Delhi 
"loved" Bhutan, and did not want to offend India by pressing 
Bhutanese issues.  Ambassador Lade noted similar sentiments 
in the Australian Embassy in New Delhi.  He pointed out that 
Indian pressure on Bhutan was key, as Australia had little 
leverage with Bhutan.  He cautioned that the Australian 
Embassy in New Delhi, and some in Canberra, did not want to 
revisit the 1990-1991 expulsion of the refugees from Bhutan. 
Ambassador Lade noted that, while the expulsion could not 
have happened without the consent (and assistance) of India, 
it would be difficult to now condemn India's role.  However, 
Ambassador Lade and the Ambassador agreed that the GOI had an 
important role to play in guaranteeing that the Bhutanese did 
not expel the remaining 125,000-plus ethnic Nepalese living 
in Bhutan. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶5. (C) There seems to be agreement among the diplomatic 
community in Kathmandu that there is a need to 
"internationalize" the Bhutanese refugee issue in order to 
come up with a durable solution, although these discussions 
indicate there is a need to develop a consensus on what 
"internationalization" actually entails. 
 
MORIARTY