VZCZCXRO2495
PP RUEHLN RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHDBU #0877/01 1631243
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 121243Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0438
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHMFIUU/DIA FT BELVOIR
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL PRIORITY 2121
RUEHPW/AMCONSUL PESHAWAR PRIORITY 0023
RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 2156
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 2122
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 0042
RUEHDBU/AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE 2161

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 DUSHANBE 000877 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PREL PGOV PHUM UNHCR TI AF
SUBJECT: TAJIKISTAN TO AFGHAN REFUGEES:  YOU CAN STAY, JUST NOT HERE~ 
OR HERE 
 
REF: DUSHANBE 860 
 
DUSHANBE 00000877  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY:  On May 31, Tajik security officials rounded up 
over 150 Afghan refugees and asylum seekers in the capital of 
Dushanbe.  Reports from those detained suggest that authorities 
held the refugees for most of the day without food, water or 
access to sanitation facilities.  The authorities released the 
refugees only after they signed an affidavit that they would 
leave the capital within three days if single or ten days if a 
family.  Refugee reports suggest that many signed these 
statements under duress or did not fully understand what they 
were signing.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  In 2000, the government of Tajikistan adopted two 
resolutions, numbers 325 and 328, which prohibit asylum seekers 
and refugees from residing in urban areas (and specifically bar 
residence in Dushanbe and Khujand).  The Office of the United 
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Tajikistan has 
been involved in an ongoing dialogue with the government of 
Tajikistan on this subject, arguing that the resolutions violate 
Article 26 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of 
Refugees.  According to Article 26, refugees should be afforded 
the same residency rights as other aliens, however resolutions 
325 and 328 apply only to asylum seekers and refugees.  UNHCR 
further argues that the resolutions are not retroactive, and, as 
most Afghan refugees settled in Dushanbe before their adoption, 
not applicable in the majority of cases. 
 
¶3.  UNHCR reports that on May 31, security forces raided several 
markets in Dushanbe, detaining up to 180 Afghans, including 
those in possession of UNHCR letters and at least one minor, a 
15 year-old boy.  According to Indira Beganovic, a Protection 
Officer at UNHCR Tajikistan, it is possible that not all of 
those detained were refugees, though most certainly were (UNHCR 
used the number 150 in its Note Verbale dated June 5). 
According to Beganovic, UNHCR took over 50 statements from 
refugees, and all were concerned about the orders to move out of 
Dushanbe.  They have jobs in Dushanbe, undergo medical 
treatment, their children attend local schools and they extend 
their documents every six months with authorities in the city. 
[NOTE:  The short (maximum six-month) periods for which Tajik 
authorities issue refugee documents is another bone of 
contention between UNHCR and the government of Tajikistan. END 
NOTE.]  Forced resettlement into the countryside, without access 
to existing family and social support networks and agencies such 
as UNHCR, could prove a significant hardship in some cases; 
"catastrophic," according to Beganovic, in others.  Refugees 
also worry that those who do not relocate out of Dushanbe would 
face deportations.  So far UNHCR staff have told us they do not 
consider the current action a violation of the principle of 
non-refoulement. 
 
¶4.  ConOff discussed the situation with both Beganovic at UNHCR 
and Aziz Ahmad Barez, the Afghan Consul to Tajikistan, June 7. 
Both Beganovic and Barez stated that they had received further, 
unconfirmed, reports that round-ups had continued that day, one 
week after the original detentions.  Barez said that he had 
heard that more Afghan traders had been detained at the Sadbarg 
Market (or "Afghan Market" reftel), while Beganovic said that 
she had received three phone calls from refugees who had been 
visited at their residences.  According to Beganovic, not only 
did those detained on May 31 have to sign an affidavit swearing 
to leave Dushanbe, they were forced to provide their current 
addresses as well. 
 
¶5.  Further complicating matters is the difficulty in locating 
the person or persons behind the actions of May 31.  Many of 
those detained reported overhearing that the Dushanbe city 
administration (the mayor's office) ordered the round-up, citing 
the fact that authorities used city detention facilities as 
evidence.  If true, this would add a new wrinkle to the refugee 
problem in Tajikistan, as such matters are supposed to be dealt 
with solely by the central government.  Barez and Beganovic, 
however, suggested that it was more likely the State Committee 
on National Security who organized the detentions.  [NOTE:  Both 
Barez and Beganovic urged ConOff to have the Embassy raise the 
issue with any contacts it had in the State Committee on 
National Security, as they themselves had none. END NOTE.] 
Beganovic said that conversations with contacts at the Ministry 
of Internal Affairs and Ministry of Labor suggest that neither 
had any prior knowledge of the detentions, and that the Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs, in response to a diplomatic note from UNHCR, 
responded that they have requested an explanation from the State 
Committee on National Security. 
 
DUSHANBE 00000877  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
 
¶6.  COMMENT:  The raids and detentions of May 31 paint a 
disturbing picture of the direction that the situation 
surrounding Afghan refugees in Tajikistan is heading.  UNHCR's 
immediate concern is to stop the current campaign, the first of 
its kind, but the lack of a coordinated and durable solution to 
the refugee question in Tajikistan is alarming.  Post has 
received other reports that the detentions, as they focused 
primarily on those Afghans working in the local markets, may be 
related to jealousies arising from the relative success of the 
Afghan traders (see Reftel).  Regardless, the law upon which 
Tajik authorities based the actions of May 31 contradicts 
international norms.  END COMMENT. 
JACOBSON