VZCZCXYZ0018
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKT #1531/01 2221156
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 101156Z AUG 07
FM AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6837
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 6021
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 1802
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1811

UNCLAS KATHMANDU 001531 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR PRM, SCA/INS, DRL, AND G; GENEVA FOR RMA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PREF PREL NP CH
SUBJECT: NEPAL DEPORTS TIBETAN REFUGEE TO CHINA 
 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED - PROTECT ACCORDINGLY 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: On July 16 Tibetan refugee Tsering Wangchen 
was deported from Nepal to China in an apparent violation of 
the so-called &gentlemen,s agreement8 between the 
Government of Nepal (GON) and UNHCR whereby new Tibetan 
refugee arrivals are permitted to transit Nepal to India and 
are not returned to China.  The incident was reported widely 
in the international press and by the U.S.-based 
International Campaign for Tibet.  Embassy has attempted to 
clarify events leading to the refoulement and expressed its 
concern over the incident to the GON on August 7.  The 
Ministry of Home Affairs assured the Embassy August 9 that 
the incident does not reflect a change of the GON policy of 
non-refoulement of Tibetan refugees, but rather was an 
anomaly based on confusion in the Department of Immigration 
and alleged criminal behavior by Tsering Wangchen.  The 
Ministry promised that appropriate measures would be taken to 
ensure no such incidents occur in the future.  Ambassador 
raised U.S. concern over the incident in her August 10 
meeting with the Prime Minister, who had been unaware of it. 
End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) According to information obtained by Embassy from 
UNHCR and from the Tibet Office in Kathmandu, Tibetan refugee 
Tsering Wangchen initially entered Nepal in early 2006 and 
 
SIPDIS 
routinely was allowed transit to India with the assistance of 
UNHCR via the Tibetan Refugee Reception Center (TRRC) on 
March 26, 2006.  He returned to Nepal clandestinely in August 
2006, however, with the reported intention of returning to 
Tibet, and took up temporary residence in Kathmandu.  While 
in Kathmandu, he was accused by a neighbor of theft and 
subsequently threatened investigating police with a knife, 
for which he was arrested and fined 10,000 Nepalese rupees 
(about USD 150).  Unable to pay the fine, he instead was 
jailed until October 2006 and then turned over to the 
Department of Immigration (DOI).  The DOI imposed an 
additional fine of 17,000 rupees (USD 260) for illegal 
residence, which he also was unable to pay.  UNHCR 
interviewed Tsering Wangchen on October 19, 2006, and finding 
him to be a refugee, asked DOI not deport him to China. 
Normally, members of the local Tibetan community will assist 
indigent Tibetan refugees to pay DOI fines, but in this case 
no one came to his assistance, and he instead was returned to 
jail until July 11. 
 
¶3. (SBU) UNHCR staff were informed July 12 by the DOI that 
Tsering Wangchen was being released from prison and was 
 
SIPDIS 
subject to deportation.  UNHCR at this point normally would 
have transmitted a formal request to the DOI that a Tibetan 
refugee be released into the custody of UNHCR and the TRRC 
for movement to India instead of deportation to China.  In 
this case, however, UNHCR did not transmit such a letter 
because it had been advised informally by the DOI that 
Tsering Wangchen in any event would be released to UNHCR/TRRC 
 
SIPDIS 
custody.  Despite this assurance, however, the DOI quietly 
moved him to the Kodari/Tatopani border crossing and deported 
him to China on July 16.  No information is available as to 
his current status or whereabouts.  Embassy did not learn of 
Tsering Wangchen,s refoulement until August 3, when it was 
 
SIPDIS 
informed of the incident by the Washington-based 
&International Campaign for Tibet.8 
 
¶4. (SBU) On August 7, Embassy expressed its concern over the 
refoulement to Ministry of Home Affairs Under Secretary 
Shankar Koirala, who promised an investigation.  In a meeting 
with emboff August 9, Koirala said the DOI,s action in 
deporting Tsering Wangchen to China was an &anomaly,8 and 
absolutely did not reflect a change in the GON policy of 
non-refoulement and of turning Tibetan refugees over to UNHCR 
and the TRRC to arrange their onward transit to India. 
Koirala was clearly contrite and irritated with the DOI.  He 
said the DOI claims it  mistakenly handled Tsering 
Wangchen,s case in this manner because he had been residing 
in Kathmandu rather than attempting to transit Nepal from 
China to India, and because he had been arrested on criminal 
rather than illegal entry charges.  Koirala emphasized that 
this rationale by the DOI was in error and that the DOI had 
carried out the deportation without notifying senior Ministry 
officials.  He went on to assure emboff that a Ministry 
investigation of the deportation is continuing and that 
safeguards would be put into place so that no such incident 
would occur in the future. 
 
¶5. (SBU) In her meeting with Prime Minister Koirala August 
10, the Ambassador expressed U.S. concern over the 
deportation and sought assurance that the GON was not 
changing its policy of non-refoulement of Tibetan refugees. 
The Prime Minister did not have information at hand regarding 
the incident. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Comment: The GON does not appear to have backed away 
from its formal policy of non-refoulement of Tibetan 
refugees.  The deportation instead appears to have resulted 
from a combination of confusion over official GON policy, 
miscommunication, and perhaps some ill will in the Department 
of Immigration.  This was compounded by the failure by UNHCR 
on July 12 to transmit a formal request to the DOI that 
Tsering Wangchen be handed over to UNHCR and the TRRC to 
 
SIPDIS 
facilitate his transit to India instead of deporting him to 
China--a copy of that request would have been sent to the GON 
&National Unit for the Co-ordination of Refugee Affairs8 
(NUCRA), which could have ensured that it was honored by the 
DOI.  UNHCR agrees it must in the future be sure to formally 
submit such requests, with copies to NUCRA.  Emboff 
emphasized to the Ministry of Home Affairs the extreme 
concern with which the U.S. views the deportation of Tsering 
Wangchen and the possible consequences of any relaxation of 
the GON policy of non-refoulement of Tibetan refugees. 
 
POWELL