VZCZCXYZ0017
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1301/01 1601146
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 091146Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5978
INFO RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU PRIORITY 0097
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 0533
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY 0320
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 4107
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1325

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001301 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR PRM/ANE (L BARTLETT) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL BT IN NP NL
SUBJECT: DONOR COUNTRIES COALESCE ON BHUTANESE REFUGEE 
STRATEGY 
 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY: On June 1, 2006, seven members of the Core 
Group on Bhutanese Refugees, the UNHCR and the European 
Commission met in The Hague to set a near-term strategy to 
break the impasse in resolving the 16-year-old Bhutan refugee 
problem.  Representatives agreed to lobby both Nepal (to take 
the initial steps of registering camp residents and allowing 
the most vulnerable cases to resettle to third countries) and 
Bhutan (to make good on the pledge to enable the voluntary 
return of Category One and Four refugees to Bhutan). 
Participants asked the USG to give India a read-out of the 
results of the meeting and supported USG plans to provide a 
joint briefing to Nepal, Bhutan, and India in New York in 
July.  Additional strategies were also discussed, including a 
special envoy, linking development aid to progress on 
resolution of the refugee problem, and resettlement of 
Bhutanese refugees in third countries.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (U) The Netherlands hosted a meeting on June 1, 2006, of 
members of the Core Group on Bhutanese Refugees to discuss 
the current impasse in resolving the Bhutan refugee issue. 
In addition to the Netherlands, representatives from 
Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, 
the United States, and UNHCR attended.  The European 
Commission, though not a Core Group member, also 
participated.  PRM/ANE Deputy Director Lawrence Bartlett and 
poloff represented the United States. 
 
RESETTLE REFUGEES BUT DO NOT LINK DEVELOPMENT AID TO PROGRESS 
--------------------------------------------- ---------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) Core Group members shared information on their 
ability to accept Bhutanese refugees for voluntary 
resettlement in their countries.  The USG and Canadian 
offers, 50,000 and 5,000 respectively - each over a 
multi-year period - far outstrip those of all other members 
combined, who offered to absorb refugees in the hundreds.  In 
discussing the immediate needs of extremely vulnerable 
refugees, who may have been subjected to violence or are 
single female-headed families, most countries agreed their 
resettlement programs could accept refugees immediately.  The 
USG, Canada, and UNHCR shared their recent unsuccessful 
experiences in trying to get 16 urgent cases out of Nepal as 
evidence that firm resettlement offers to a small group of 
refugees have not been sufficient to persuade the Nepalese 
government to issue exit permits.  The USG noted the urgency 
of using resettlement as a tool in negotiations, since Maoist 
influence in the camps, should it increase, might prevent 
refugees from passing security screening required for third 
country resettlement. 
 
¶4. (U) Members also shared information on their development 
budgets in Nepal and Bhutan, with all noting an unwillingness 
to withhold or decrease development program funding to either 
country to leverage a resolution of the refugee issue. 
Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, and the European Commission all 
suggested using assistance as a carrot to encourage the two 
parties to resolve the situation satisfactorily. 
 
FIRST STEPS FIRST, THEN PUSH FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
 
¶5. (SBU) Denmark opened discussion on the way forward by 
asking that a comprehensive solution be orchestrated to 
resolve the status of the over 100,000 refugees before 
pushing for immediate action by either Nepal or Bhutan.  The 
USG, supported by Canada, pushed back, noting that getting 
Nepal and Bhutan to take smaller, first steps might better 
pave the way for an eventual comprehensive solution:  Nepal 
should allow a smaller number of extremely vulnerable 
refugees (up to the 7,500 UNHCR had previously identified) to 
resettle to third countries and should allow UNHCR to 
register camp residents (or conduct a "census" of the camp 
population) to ascertain population numbers and the interest 
of refugees in returning to Bhutan; Bhutan must make good on 
its promise to allow Categories One and Four refugees from 
Khundunabari Camp to voluntarily return to Bhutan after 
offering detailed information about the terms and conditions 
that would face returning refugees and commencing a voluntary 
return program. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Other countries, eventually including Denmark, 
agreed to this approach.  Australia reiterated an agreement 
made at the previous meeting that Core Group countries 
demarche Nepal and Bhutan with a common message, emphasizing 
that these initial steps begin immediately and detailing how 
 
Core Group countries might assist.  The USG plans to again 
deliver its message in advance of the planned July 14 
briefing with Nepal, Bhutan, and India (see para 9) and will 
ask that other countries do the same. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The Netherlands raised the issue of appointing a 
special envoy to facilitate communication between Core Group 
countries and Nepal and Bhutan.  Core Group members expressed 
only mild interest in the suggestion, noting that the mandate 
of the position would first need to be known before they 
could confirm interest.  The USG noted we would consider the 
value of such a position.  The Netherlands agreed to draft a 
short job description for others to consider at the June 
22-23, 2006, Annual Tripartite Consultation (ATC) meeting in 
Geneva.  Members did not raise any possible candidates for 
such a position. 
 
MAKING INDIA A FULL PARTNER, FOLLOWING UP WITH NEPAL, BHUTAN 
--------------------------------------------- --------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Canada suggested that the USG, as the most 
influential Core Group member, brief India on the outcomes of 
the Hague meeting and invite them to become a full partner of 
the group.  All participants agreed.  Members suggested that 
the USG provide this briefing in Delhi and report back at the 
June ATC meeting.  The Department will convey points to 
Embassy Delhi via septel. 
 
¶9. (SBU) The USG tabled a proposal to conduct a joint meeting 
with Nepal, Bhutan, India and a small group of Core Group 
countries in New York in July.  The purpose of the meeting 
would be to receive information from both Nepal and Bhutan on 
their bi-lateral process and reiterate USG and Core Group 
interest in both countries taking the first steps noted above 
in advance of a more comprehensive solution.  The date of 
this briefing, if accepted by invitees, is tentatively set 
for July 14.  Participants agreed to the USG initiative and 
asked that only two Core Group members join the USG in the 
meeting, in part to deliver a united message but not 
overwhelm Nepal and India with a larger group.  The USG 
offered to share talking points for the meeting with Core 
Group members and feed their points, if acceptable, into the 
meeting.  The USG would envision following up in the region 
with additional demarches from Kathmandu and Delhi and is 
considering a mission to the region by PRM Assistant 
Secretary Sauerbrey. 
 
SIPDIS 
ARNALL