Resettlement condom can explode

Source: Kathmandu Post

BY SOM N SUBEDY

One of the hottest topics among the Bhutanese refugees in the camps nowadays is the resettlement offer made by the United States and the core group countries. Much has been said and written in favor and against the proposal by various personalities. Being a second-generation Bhutanese refugee, I tried to analyze the much-hyped resettlement offer objectively. And to my surprise, I found it to be very similar to a condom—a much-advertised product for modern living which helps to keep unwanted misery away, but you have to be careful how you use it.

Condoms and the resettlement offer are both temporary things, but there is one vital difference between the two. The former is a use-and-throw item, while the latter, once taken (used), cannot be chucked away. The Bhutanese refugees need to be clear about the resettlement plan even though it comes in a very attractive and alluring package like a condom.

Inside the camps, condoms are distributed free of cost in places like health centers, the Youth Friendly Center, Bhutanese Refugee Women Forum and other outlets. In the same fashion, resettlement forms have been placed in the camps for free distribution to all.

Both are used for protection from angst—one from disease and unwanted pregnancy, and the other has been publicized as providing relief from the anguish of a refugee's life. UNHCR and the core group countries are working hard to convince the refugees to accept their offer by showing them a "dream garden" of Western nations. They make it sound like once the refugees reach the destination decided by these countries, the agony of living in the cramped camps will be over. But the poor refugees are not yet ready to accept their talk fully, because they see no guarantee of their unanswered questions being resolved. Will Jigme Singye Wangchuck be let off scot-free in spite of his inhumane action? If not, who will guarantee that he will be made to stand a fair trail? What will happen to our properties that we were compelled to abandon because of the draconian measures taken by the despotic regime? Will the core group countries guarantee that another exodus of refugees will not happen as a result of the motivation that the resettlement offer may provide to the tinpot despot?

Therefore, the refugees, particularly the senior citizens, are not very much convinced by the calisthenics of UNHCR and the core group countries—as condoms at times burst and put the users in trouble in spite of the guarantees made by their manufacturers.

The refugees are apprehensive that the resettlement condom may explode in the process. This would throw them into unprecedented chaos. This is the kind of unfortunate situation that they fear.

Although there are several parallels one can see between a condom and the resettlement offer, there is a conspicuous difference. The refugees are not told who pays whom and what amount. But all the accounts are debited in the name of the refugees who have been selected to relocate in third countries. This suggests that the ethnic cleansing carried out by the tyrannical regime of Jigme Singye Wangchuck is acceptable.

AMDA has been distributing both male and female condoms in the refugee camps. The US and UNHCR are distributing only one type of condom, that is, resettlement forms but no repatriation forms. Should it not be a priority concern for the core group countries and UNHCR that the refugees be repatriated to their birthplace under the principles of human rights and democracy which they talk so much about?

When condoms were introduced in the refugee camps in the early 1990s, the inmates refused to use the device because they were shy and also because it got in the way during intercourse. They waited for the health staff and educated refugees to use it first. In the present case too, the refugees are waiting for the educated and knowledgeable among them to sign up for resettlement first.

Another reason they are reluctant to fill up the forms is that there is no guarantee they will be leaving for another country. If their applications are rejected, they become vulnerable to reprisals from groups opposed to the resettlement plan.

Just as one uses condoms in private and refrains from showing them in public, UNHCR, the US and the IOM are treating the resettlement process like a secret operation. Nobody knows how many have applied, who they are, how many of them have been called for an interview, what the interview is like and why one is selected when another is not. There are a host of such questions that the refugees want answered, but everything has been kept under wraps in the name of security.

Another side of the resettlement plan is that it may be extended to Tibetan refugees too and thus bring great embarrassment to China. If China does not reproach US Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey's statement, it would appear that China supports the hidden interest of the US to resettle Tibetan refugees in the US. Nobody knows how the Government of Nepal will take that.

The way Hari Bangaley, former member of Bhutan's National Assembly, used the resettlement condom in the refugee camps for his and UNHCR's interest is widely viewed as one of the reasons behind the opposition to resettlement. He tried to blow the resettlement condom out of proportion and showed it to the refugees, blaming all those who would not agree with him. But Bangaley's condom exploded with a big bang with the loss of the lives of two innocent refugee youths.

Today, he is not in a position to say sorry for his disastrous act. All those who want to use the resettlement condom must pause and think that it cannot be thrown away after use. After you use it you are stuck to it and no one knows what the future holds in store.

(The writer is a Bhutanese refugee.)