Going home or abroad: question for Bhutanese refugees in Nepal

Source: Xinhua

By Phanindra Dahal

Thirty-eight-year-old Krishna Prasad Sharma, who has been living in Nepalas a Bhutanese refugee since 1991, is excited that his family will soon find a new home in a developed country under a resettlement program.

But his old father Ram Prasad Sharma is not.

Sharma's family, living in makeshift huts at Goldhap refugee camp, some 320 km east of Nepali capital Kathmandu, is one among more than 7,800 Bhutanese refugees families residing in seven different camps of Jhapa and Morang districts in eastern Nepal.

Some 105,000 Bhutanese refugees have been living in seven camps in eastern Nepal for the last 17 years. Bilateral talks between Nepal and Bhutan -- 15 rounds of them -- failed to yield any results so far.

Since the beginning of this year, the third-country resettlement of the refugees in north America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand has started.

"My life in the refugee camp is like a hell. I have no job and earnings," said Krishna, whose application for third country resettlement is in process.

"We waited for so many years but Bhutan is not ready to accept us. I don't want my children to suffer like us," said the father of two sons.

The refugees entered Nepal via bordering towns of India during late 1980s and early 1990s after Bhutanese government carried out ethnic cleansing against people of Nepali origin.

For the last 17 years, the Bhutanese refugees have been living in Nepal with the support from United Nations food and shelter program.

The Nepal-Bhutan talks began in 2003 and in 2007 the Nepali government gave the green light for the refugees to resettle abroad.

Krishna Sharma said he planned to work and strive for a good living for his wife and children in a foreign land.

"I will work hard and educate my two kids so that they can live a happy life," he added.

According to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Nepal, seven western governments -- the United States, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark -- have offered to resettle nearly 90 thousand refugees.

The United States said it was ready to pick up 60,000 initially, followed by as many as wishing, in the next five years.

"Until mid-June, 37,988 refugees have applied for resettlement and 1,186 have been resettled," UNHCR Nepal's external assistant Nini Gurung told Xinuha days ago.

"We would be sending more and more refugees in coming months," she added.

But Bhutanese refugee resettlement program has brought a big division among the refugees living inside the bamboo-and-mud-made huts.

Krishna's 70-year-old father Ram Prasad Sharma is against the resettlement program.

"My forefathers lived there. I have a house and land in Bhutan," he said, "How can I leave my properties and friends and go to foreign countries?"

"I want to die on the land of Bhutan, I will not follow the footprints of my son and go abroad," he added.

"All the energetic people inside the camps are preparing for resettlement. If they go, who will take care of us and run the movement for repatriation," he said sadly.

The refugees organized a "long march" to go back to Bhutan via India in March last year but Indian security forces at Indo-Nepal border stopped them. One refugee died and many were injured in the clash.

Last year after Nepali government decided to allow refugees to resettle, violence erupted inside camps. Two refugees died in the clash between groups supporting and opposing resettlement program.

Most of the Bhutanese Refugees who do not want to be resettled hope that Bhutan will be compelled to take them back if strong international pressure is put against it.

"To transport refugees from one country to another is not a durable solution," S.B. Subba, the chairman of Human Rights Association of Bhutan (HUROB), an organization in exile said, adding that the international community should give more priority to repatriation than resettlement.

"The aid agencies and international community have given more focus on resettlement of refugees. But Bhutan is the ultimate destiny for refugees and solution of this problem," He said.

Some groups have even started to target against resettlement program.

On June 30, three bombs exploded inside the office of International Organization of Migration (IOM) situated at Damak city in Jhapa district. It was near the refugee camps.

But till now, Bhutan, which entered a new democracy after the historic election in this May, has shown no signs of accepting the refugees as its legitimate citizens.

In the Goldhap camp, while father Ram is waiting for the time when he can return to his homeland, his son Krishna is desperately longing for the ticket abroad.

Question Of Refugee Repatriation

Source: The Rising Nepal

By: T P Mishra

Human beings are social ani-mals who are po- litically influenced, and they are certain to get involved in political demonstrations aimed at raising voices for the stablishment of their rights. Though it is one of the fundamental rights, Bhutanese refugees in Nepal are barred from staging a peaceful campaign or other programmes for the return to their original homeland.

Restrictions
In fact, it is unfair and unjustifiable to restrict the refugees from holding peaceful demonstrations in the name of controlling crime-related activities inside the refugee camps. Undoubtedly, there has been a rise in crimes and unruly activities inside these camps, most of them said to be instigated by the underground revolutionary outfits. Perpetrators should not allowed to go scot free, but it is not wise on the part of the local authorities to restrict innocent peaceful demonstrators from raising their voice for repatriation.

Following the option of Third Country Resettlement (TCR), other options, in particular the repatriation process of Bhutanese refugees, is getting overshadowed. In recent times, the different media in Nepal have been reporting that the local authorities in Jhapa and Morang districts are clamping restrictions on peaceful demonstrations and protests in favour of repatriation inside the refugee camps.

Nepal’s frequent claim that it supports and gives priority to the repatriation process sounds contradictory. Actually, the Government of Nepal has failed to convince Thimphu to accelerate the repatriation process while the local authorities are opting measures to restrict the refugees from holding peaceful demonstrations inside the UNHCR-administered camps.
In the last week of May last year, thousands of refugees who staged peaceful protests were stranded at the Indo-Bhutan border on the Mechi Bridge by the Indian security forces while demanding passage to Bhutan. The Indian police intervened to stop the demonstrators, and in the scuffle, an innocent refugee youth Shah Bahadur Dewan was shot dead. Not only this, hundreds of those who sustained injuries are still undergoing medical treatment.
The local authority’s decision to restrict peaceful demonstrations inside the refugee camps clearly shows its intention to suppress the refugees’ sentiments to return to their home, Bhutan. This sort of behaviour from the local authorities at a time when Nepal has already become a republic with a pledge to enter a ‘New Nepal’ leaves a number of unanswered queries.
Bhutanese refugees being of Nepali ethnic origin are certainly close to Nepal. Moreover, the refugees have high hopes that their issue will be solved with the efforts and support from the Government of Nepal. Nepal should, thus, become ‘liberal’ and allow the refugees to at least demonstrate their feelings and demands through peaceful means.

However, it is equally necessary to maintain good vigilance by the Armed Police Force (APF), deployed in each of the seven camps, to see that there is no infiltration by untoward elements in such demonstrations. The refugees should also ensure that they abide by the law of the host country while staging such peaceful protests. Any violent attempts from refugees to raise their voice - be it for repatriation, resettlement or local assimilation - would certainly be a criminal acts. Only in such cases should the local authorities try to disband the refugees’ protests. Or else it is unfair not to allow peaceful protest programmes.

Meanwhile, those refugees and groups favouring the option of repatriation should not obstruct the resettlement process as there is increasing number of people from the same community wishing to opt for it. A sense of mutual cooperation and understanding between the divided opinions among the refugees is a must to ensure that all possible options are unlocked.

Initiatives
Now-a-days the efforts to press the Druk regime to accelerate the repatriation process are limited to ‘issuing media statements’. None of the concerned authorities, including the Government of Nepal, are opting for practical measures to bring Bhutan to the negotiating table. As a result, those refugees who wish to return to Bhutan have started making efforts on their own, particularly through peaceful protests inside the refugee camps.
It should be clearly understood that suppressing such efforts of the refugees by no means will discourage them from raising their voice for repatriation. Rather it will only add fuel to the refugee problem. The authorities concerned should take urgent and necessary initiatives to address the demands of the refugees.


(Editor of BNS, Mishra is also president of the Bhutan Chapter of Third World Media Network and can be reached at: mishratp@gmail.com)

60 Bhutanese refugees on way to US, New Zealand

Source: The Himalayan Times

Sixty Bhutanese refugees from Khudunabri, Goldhap and Timai camps in Jhapa district and Shanishcharey camp in Morang district today left on a Yeti Airlines flight from Bhadrapur to Kathmandu. These 60 refugees will be later taking international flights from Kathmandu to the US and New Zealand, said Jhapa CDO Shankar Prasad Koirala.

Bal Krishna Ghimire, a refugee at Goldhap camp, said the refugees belonging to 17 families seemed happy at the chance of rehabilitation in a third country. The US has said it will accommodate 60,000 refugees.

Jhapa assistant CDO Laxman Prasad Hamal said 150 refugees were given the clearance for third-country settlement. Of these, 60 left for Kathmandu today, he added. Earlier, the family of former secretary of Beldangi camp in Damak Hari Bagale and the family of Tilanga Dhital of the same camp had been sent to the US for resettlement. However, there is no official confirmation of this piece of news.

The UNHCR is handling the third-country resettlement of the refugees. International organisation IOM is interviewing other refugees. Controversy prevails over the question of third- country resettlement, with a small but unruly section of the refugees standing against it and threatening other refugees not to opt for third-country resettlement. In May, two refugees in Beldangi camp were killed in a clash over the issue.

Third country refugee settlement not a durable solution: Sahana Pradhan

Source: Nepalnews.com

Foreign Minister Sahana Pradhan has said that third country resettlement is not a durable solution to the Bhutanese refugee issue, and that there is a need to involve India in resolving this protracted crisis.

Speaking at a function organised jointly by Bhutan News Service and Nepal FM in Kathmandu on Saturday to mark the first anniversary of the radio programme 'Saranarthi Sarokar', Pradhan said it was out of compulsion that the Nepal government accepted the proposal of western countries to resettle over 70,000 Bhutanese refugees.

She further said the receiving countries have assured of repatriating those refugees who cannot be resettled or do not wish to be resettled.

UNHCR country representative in Nepal Daisy Dale said over 23,000 applications have been registered at her office by Bhutanese refugees expressing their willingness to be resettled in third countries. She added that the international community would continue to advocate for repatriation of the refugees to their homeland even after the third country resettlement.

Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Interim Parliament Romi Gauchan Thakali said that Bhutanese refugee crisis is not an issue limited only between Bhutan and Nepal. “Humanitarian problem like this cannot be called a bilateral issue,” he added.

Chairman of Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC) Subodh Pyakurel said the issue has to be taken to the international court of justice and should be raised seriously before the UN human rights council meets this April to review the human rights situation around the world.

Vice President of Bhutan National Democratic Party (BNDP) Dr DNS Dhakal said the resettling countries must guarantee the right to citizenship and restitution of looted properties whenever situation becomes favourable for repatriation of the Bhutanese refugees to their homeland.

Other speakers also stressed that repatriation is the best and lasting solution of the Bhutanese refugee issue than third country resettlement.

According to Vidhyapati Mishra, Manager of Bhutan News Service, 'Saranarthi Sarokar' radio programme is being aired from Nepal FM every Saturday and CJMC community radio on every Sunday. The programme produced by Bhutan News Service is also aired from Pathivara FM in Jhapa four times a week. nepalnews.com ia Feb 23 08

33,000 refugees to be resettled by 2009

Source: eKantipur.com

The Kathmandu-based representatives of the Core Group of Nations working closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to support the refugees from Bhutan has stated that in 2008 more than 13,000 refugees will be resettled from Nepal.

"By the end of 2009, we hope that an additional 20,000 or more refugees who have chosen resettlement will be starting new lives in the United States, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere," said a statement issued on Wednesday by US Ambassador to Nepal Nancy J Powell as Chair of the Core Group of Nations -- Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the US.

The Core Group has emphasized that the offer of resettlement goes hand in hand with continuing efforts to urge the government of Bhutan to accept the return of the refugees. "Repatriation and local integration are recognized by all of us as being equally desirable durable solutions," said Powell in the statement.

The Core Group nations and other nations have extended the offer of resettlement as a durable humanitarian solution for the refugees only after many years of attempts by the governments of Nepal and Bhutan to negotiate a repatriation solution, Powell said.

"I want to express our pleasure at the official opening on January 9 of the refugee resettlement processing center in Damak for the Bhutanese refugees," Powell said. The center is operated by the International Organization for Migration.

The group members have called upon the government of Nepal to approve expedited exit permits for all refugees who are eligible for resettlement and to establish for future use a standardized process for the expeditious departure of refugees who wish to be resettled.

Time for Bhutanese refugees to choose their future path

Source: Refugees International (RI)

Many of the 108,000 Bhutanese refugees in Nepal, where they have been stuck for 17 years, are tantalizingly close to a resolution of their plight. A vigorous response from the government of Nepal, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and donor governments is needed to create the conditions for refugees to exercise their right to choose their future path.

Background

A year ago, the United States offered to resettle 60,000 Bhutanese refugees, and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have since followed the U.S. lead with combined offers of an additional 10,000 places. But certain refugee political leaders, few of whom actually live in the camps in eastern Nepal, are portraying the acceptance of resettlement as a betrayal of the long-desired return to Bhutan and therefore tantamount to treason. Death threats, physical attacks, and destruction of the property of leaders known to be sympathetic to resettlement have forced at least 50 people from the camps and prevented the resettlement program from going forward.

1. Establishing Security in the Camps

This has not been a good year for camp security. Incidents in Beldangi II, one of seven camps in Jhapa and Morang districts in eastern Nepal, involved the destruction of houses, assaults on leaders known to favor the resettlement option, and attacks against Nepali police brought in to quell the rioting. Two refugees died in the course of these incidents, and a third was murdered in mid-September. On top of these acts, refugees believed to be members of the Bhutanese Maoist political party and radical youth groups have repeatedly issued death threats against particular individuals, such as posters in Beldangi I with the names of nine refugees labeled “agents of America,” over the phrase, “You are warned!”

The government of Nepal accepts its responsibility for providing security for the refugees and has committed to deploying 25 members of the Armed Police Force in each of the seven camps. This step is very welcome, though its impact may be less than hoped for. APF expertise is in riot control and response to physical violence, and refugees told Refugees International that they doubted the ability of APF personnel to reduce threats and quiet intimidation in the crowded camp conditions. The perpetrators of the attacks are widely known, and pre-emptive steps, such as removing ringleaders from the camps may be necessary.

2. Protecting the Especially Vulnerable

The atmosphere of intimidation has driven at least 50 and as many as 150 refugees from the camps. Others remain, but feel under constant threat. While security is the responsibility of the government of Nepal, UNHCR has a special responsibility, especially as the resettlement effort goes forward, to ensure that those needing protection receive it.

Among the refugees outside the camps, there are those who have no means of accessing basic necessities. They are unable to receive their camp rations and do not have family members in a position to provide them with what they need. While UNHCR provided a one-time grant of NRs10,000 (about US$160) to families forced from the camps, it is refusing to provide additional assistance on the following grounds: it has no mandate for aid programs outside the camps; it wants to avoid drawing more people out; and most refugees outside the camps have no need of additional assistance. This approach is excessively narrow and conservative, and is leaving an uncertain number of individuals in a vulnerable position. UNHCR should quickly survey the refugees forced from the camps, and provide assistance to those requiring it based on this needs assessment.

3. Clarifying Nepali Government Policy

The Nepali government deserves credit for granting sanctuary to the Bhutanese refugees for 17 years and investing scarce diplomatic resources in periodic negotiations on returns with the government of Bhutan. Its reaction to the resettlement offer, however, has been equivocal. While senior officials, notably the Foreign Minister, have endorsed resettlement as one possible durable solution, the government on the whole has failed to take the necessary steps to make it a reality. Especially problematic is the delay in granting exit permits to 41 individuals in urgent need of protection as identified by UNHCR and potential resettlement countries. The current process forces the refugee to get documentation and approvals inside the camp, which exposes the individual to intimidation and potential violence from the anti-resettlement groups. This contrasts with the relative ease of granting permits for Tibetan refugees to cross Nepali territory into India.

One thing that unites Bhutanese refugees across the political spectrum is the desire for the Nepali government to state clearly and publicly in the camps its policy towards resettlement and towards resolution to the refugee problem more broadly. Representatives of both UNHCR and the United States government told Refugees International that there could be no way forward without such a statement. Nonetheless, the person designated by the Nepali government to announce the policy, the Chief District Officer of Jhapa, the district where six of seven refugee camps are located, told RI that he is not prepared to make a public statement expressing Nepali support for resettlement, preferring instead to issue a letter to be distributed in the camps by government staff. Given the previous lack of clarity on Nepali policy and the volatile atmosphere in the camps, this would fall far short of what is needed.

4. Developing a Comprehensive Approach

There is a profound sense of injustice in Nepal that the efforts devoted to resettling Bhutanese refugees in third countries have not been matched by efforts to convince the government of Bhutan to create the conditions for return. While the leaders know that accepting resettlement does not forever preclude the possibility of return should political change come to Bhutan, in their hearts they know that large-scale resettlement will remove a mass of Bhutanese refugees from the region, making political mobilization at the local level more difficult. Further, the Bhutanese leadership will have paid no political penalty for violating the human rights of one hundred thousand of its citizens. The impunity is galling.

The proponents of resettlement in the international community hold out hope that as the number of refugees decrease in Nepal, Bhutan will be more open to returns and Nepal itself will be open to local integration. But neither development will occur without diplomatic engagement. India is the major power in the region, but it has refused to use its leverage under treaty obligations as the guarantor of Bhutan's security to negotiate a change in Bhutan's approach to the rights of its Nepali inhabitants. India and major donors to Bhutan, such as Japan, Austria, and Denmark, need to insist that as Bhutan begins to open up its political system, treating Nepali speakers equally, granting them their rights as citizens, and allowing for refugee return will enhance Bhutan's stature regionally and globally.

Policy Recommendations


1. The Government of Nepal announce officially and publicly in the camps that it supports refugee choice, including third country resettlement, and simplify the process for considering resettlement cases and granting exit visas.

2. UNHCR provide assistance and consider special protection measures for refugees forced to leave the camps due to violence and intimidation.

3. UNHCR in cooperation with the government of Nepal and resettlement countries mount a comprehensive information campaign on durable solutions, including the use of media such as radio and video.

4. The U.S., in the context of its generous resettlement offer, engage with India and Nepal on a fresh diplomatic initiative with the government of Bhutan to recognize the citizenship rights of Nepali speakers and allow the return for those refugees desiring to do so.

5. The U.S. begin a dialogue with Nepal on local integration for those unwilling to opt for resettlement or return.

RI Vice President for Policy Joel Charny just returned from a two-week assessment of the situation for Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.

Resettlement option nudges forward

Source:Kantipuronline.com
BY DAMAKANT JAYSHI

KATHMANDU, July 28 - .The Home Ministry has agreed to provide between 25-30 armed policemen for each of the seven Bhutanese refugee camps within a month to help facilitate the process of resettlement in third countries, sources privy to this development told the Post.

"We had committed to beef up the security by Ashad-end (mid-July) but due to violence in the terai and other constraints, we could not do so," admits a top Home Ministry official when asked to confirm this development. The ministry has already written to APF and Nepal Police to provide additional personnel of about 200. .

As per an understanding, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Nepal (UNHCR-Nepal) has agreed to construct buildings for police personnel (both APF and Nepal Police) inside each of the camps and meet some related costs.

This new arrangement is in addition to an Armed Police Force (APF) base camp near the Beldangi camps with about 200 men.

For 17 long years, the evicted Lhostsampas (Nepali-speaking Bhutanese in southern Bhutan) - now numbering over 100,000 - have been waiting to lead a normal life outside their small huts. With Nepal-Bhutan bilateral efforts failing to find a solution vis-à-vis repatriation due to Bhutanese government's reluctance, refugees now want to avail themselves the next option - resettlement in third countries - which has become possible due to offer by core group countries.

The core group countries - the United States, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand - have declared their intention to resettle tens of thousands of refugees on humanitarian grounds, with the US alone expressing its willingness to take in around 60,000 refugees.

But to the dismay of many refugees, some hardline youths in camps and their leaders outside have opposed the option. Outfits like Bhutan Communist Party (MLM) and Bhutan Tiger Force have sprung up and both these groups have threatened those who advocate third country option.

The violence in Beldangi-2 erupted after its pro-resettlement camp secretary Hari Bangale said, in an interview to a local FM station on May 28, that extremist refugee youths were preventing others from openly speaking in favor of third country resettlement. Soon after, he was beaten by the enraged youths and in an attempt to rescue him, the police had to open fire and two persons died subsequently. The lone police post inside the camp was torched. Although the situation is now returning to normal, UNHCR-Nepal feels security needs to be bolstered before it can move ahead with the resettlement process. Some refugees feel that way too.

"I cannot go back to my camp (in Beldangi-2) because I have openly spoken in favor of resettlement," Munna Giri, 23, told the Post in the capital. She fled the camp after the violence erupted and "I started receiving threats". Her parents and two siblings are still in the camp.

Groups like the Bhutanese Refugee Repr-esentative Repatr-iation Committee (BRRRC), and Bhutan Movement Steering Committee (BMSC) both headed by Tek Nath Rizal - who was jailed for a decade in Bhutan - are opposed to "resettlement in its present form". "Simple refugees are being hoodwinked and coerced to opt for resettlement; hence youths are angry," Rizal explains.

Others like Refugee Rights Coordination Com-mittee, AHURA-Bhutan, and Voice for Change advocate the pragmatic option - resettlement. These organizations insist that resettlement would in no way take away a refugee's right to return to Bhutan.

Interestingly, BRRRC had, in a letter to Arthur E Gene Dewey, US Assistant Secretary of State, who visited the camps in 2004, requested that the United States help explore "all alternative options".

If resettlement is derailed, there would be serious violence, fears Pingla Dhital from Beldangi-2, now in Kathmandu since 2005. "People are now keeping quiet as they do not want to risk disqualification for resettlement during the interview. But they may lose patience." The pro-settlement group claims that that there is a concerted misinformation campaign - like refugees would be holed up in camps in third countries, the physically challenged would not be accepted, among others.

UNHCR officials refute such allegations. "No disabled would be left behind if they chose to resettle," says Abraham Abraham, UNHCR-Nepal Represe-ntative. "In fact, the physically challenged would get specialized treatment in countries they would resettle in." Those with communicable diseases would be treated here first before they resettle abroad, he adds.

Govt's policy shift
On July 4, presenting its annual policy and program for 2007-08 to the interim Parliament, the government spoke of allowing refugees to resettle in third countries as a provisional solution on humanitarian grounds, while saying also that repatriation to Bhutan is the primary option. All along its policy had been advocating repatriation alone.

Census results
Home Ministry and the UN agency completed a long overdue census (re-counting) from November last year to May this year. The census found that there are 108,744 registered refugees. Of them 1,959 are 'disputed' cases: like children from Bhutan joining their parents in the camps after the latter had registered; women who married Nepali men; kids born out of such

wedlock, who, by law, are now Nepali citizens; trafficked women and girls who have returned; those who 'deregistered' and now have returned, and so on.

7,000 Bhutan Refugees May Fly to US by Sept 2008

Source: TheHimalayanTimes.com
Damaru Lal Bhandari
Kathmandu, July 29

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which was selected as the Overseas Processing Entity (OPE) to assist in the screening of the Bhutanese refugees before they migrate to the United States (US), has started setting up delayed operations in Damak.
However, "significant processing" of the applications will start only at the end of September, while only 7,000 Bhutanese refugees have a chance of flying to the US by September 2008.
This indicates that the task of processing 60,000 refugees from the total of 107 thousand, which the US expressed willingness to take, could take about nine years.
The process of screening the refugees by hiring a specialised agency goes back to February last and is running behind by a month due to what has been described as the "unsettled" conditions in refugee camps in Damak.
Going by the initial schedule, the task of setting up the operations was supposed to get underway by July 1 before the OPE "assumed responsibility for the small existing caseload by Wednesday, August 1."
This has translated into a delay by one month from September 1, a deadline by which the IOM was initially scheduled to start what has been identified as the "significant processing."
"The agency which was selected to process the cases is IOM. It was initially scheduled to start operations earlier on, but unstable conditions in Damak ruled that out. The task of setting up operations is going on now," spokesperson for the US embassy in Kathmandu, Sharon Hudson-Dean, told The Himalayan Times.
Sharon-Dean also said that "since the process is a lengthy affair, not more than 7000 refugees may get to enter the US by September 2008, indicating that the prospect of the 107 thousand Bhutanese refugees starting a new life in the US could take "several years." The IOM was selected as the OPE by the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, Office of Admissions, under the US Department of State to facilitate migration of the refugees from Nepal to the US earlier in the year following a process which got underway on February 1.
The bureau has entered into what has been identified as a "cooperative" agreement with the IOM for the period from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008, with the guarantee to renew the same for any number of years.

Bhutanese Refugees: The Right of Return, the Chance for Resettlement

Source: The Huffingtonpost

By Bill Frelick
Bhutan may profit from evocative tourist images of an isolated cloud kingdom whose people live in serenity and colorful traditional dress, but for many Bhutanese it's far from idyllic. It's a place where citizens can't get a government job, buy or sell land, or open a business without a police-issued card attesting that the bearer is not "anti-national." But it's still home - or at least it should be - for the more than 100,000 Bhutanese citizens expelled in the early 1990s.

The Bhutanese refugees, ethnic Nepalis cleansed from the remote mountain kingdom in the early 1990s, have been warehoused ever since in overcrowded refugee camps in eastern Nepal with no progress toward a resolution of their plight. They have insisted on their right to return to Bhutan; the Bhutanese government has refused to allow them back. Fifteen rounds of bilateral talks between the governments of Nepal and Bhutan have led nowhere. The impasse has lasted more than 16 years.

But a new player has entered the scene: the United States has offered to resettle 60,000 or more of the Bhutanese refugees.

The U.S. wants to break the impasse of the bilateral talks, perhaps out of worry that years of pent-up anger and frustration could soon explode, or maybe just because it is tired of pouring humanitarian aid into the bottomless sinkhole of refugee camps.

Overwhelmingly, Bhutanese refugees say their first choice is to go back home, as is their right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as binding international treaties signed by Bhutan, enshrines the right of people to return to their country. During this long period of exile, however, Bhutan has not allowed a single refugee back.

Repatriation is generally regarded as the best option for refugees - but only when the conditions that caused them to flee have changed enough that they can return safely. The government's treatment of the ethnic Nepalis who still live in Bhutan, however, shows such conditions do not exist. They remain a marginalized group in constant fear that they too could be evicted.

"It is not possible to say that we want human rights for ethnic Nepalis. It is very dangerous to say these things," an ethnic Nepali living in Bhutan told Human Rights Watch. "They will definitely take away your No Objection Certificate [the police-issued permit]. They might even take away your citizenship card."

Despite their right of return, under present circumstances Bhutanese refugees in Nepal still can't go home.

So, they continue their long wait. Without permission to work or farm, and dependent on international hand-outs for their survival, the refugees experience the range of social ills associated with protracted camp life, including depression, and domestic and sexual violence.

"After finishing their studies, young people don't get jobs. They have no work, they are idle," a refugee at the Beldangi II camp said. "They fall into bad company, and they drink a lot. They get violent."

The US resettlement offer has provided a ray of hope for some refugees. Parents can finally envision a brighter future for their children. But for others, the offer looks like a ruse to undercut the goal of return to Bhutan and to undermine the will to seek the fundamental political changes in Bhutan that would make return possible. These refugees cannot bear the idea that resettlement might relieve Bhutan of its moral and legal obligations, and that their own dreams of return to their homeland might be delayed that much longer.

Some have started to threaten and intimidate refugees who speak out in favor of resettlement; in late May, a mob attacked refugees who have supported resettlement, beating one of their leaders, burning their huts, and chasing some resettlement supporters out of the camps. In the ensuing violence, Nepali police forces shot and killed two of the rioters. The anger of the opponents of resettlement appears to be misplaced: resettlement does not extinguish the right of return. Those moving to the United States could still insist on their right to go back to Bhutan, and might even be better placed here to advocate for change in Bhutan.

At this critical moment, the United States and India, among other governments, need to pressure Bhutan to fulfill its obligations under international law and allow refugees to return in conditions of safety and dignity. But first, the government of Nepal must provide security in the camps to allow all refugees to make their own choices, free from threats and violence. The refugees who want to hold out for return deserve steadfast international support, but those who can wait no longer should be allowed to choose resettlement now.

Bill Frelick, Refugee Policy director at Human Rights Watch, researched and edited the report "Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India." He has worked in the refugee field for nearly 25 years. He previously was the director of Amnesty International USA's refugee program and before that directed the U.S. Committee for Refugees and edited The World Refugee Survey.

Nepal: Bhutanese Refugee Tensions Erupt Into Violence

Source: Human Rights Watch

(Washington, DC, May 31, 2007) – Violent clashes this week resulting in two deaths in Nepal’s Bhutanese refugee camps underscore the need for the Nepali police to protect refugees from mob violence and ensure their right to peaceful expression, Human Rights Watch said today.

The death of a third Bhutanese refugee in a confrontation with Indian police forces this week indicates that all sides must exercise restraint before tensions escalate further with even more loss of life.
Human Rights Watch is concerned about the escalation of violence in the refugee camps in eastern Nepal and along the Indian border, which some refugees have been attempting to cross in a march to Bhutan.
On May 27, a group claiming to be members of the Bhutanese Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) attacked refugees who have voiced support for a US offer to resettle Bhutanese refugees. The attackers beat at least one refugee leader and destroyed his and several other huts in Beldangi II camp in eastern Nepal. Similar attacks occurred in another camp, Beldangi I, where several huts, including the camp administration office, were also burnt down.
In response to the violence, a contingent of the Nepal Armed Police opened fire on the mob and reportedly killed a teenage boy. By some accounts, police shot a second teenager on Monday who died later that day in hospital.
“Nepali police need to protect the Bhutanese refugees and their right to peacefully express their views on resettlement or return,” said Bill Frelick, Refugee Policy director of Human Rights Watch. “Factions of Bhutanese refugees divided over the resettlement issue should reflect on the tragic loss of these young lives and conclude that fighting each other will not solve their plight.”
Refugees or others who resort to violence and attack refugees with whom they disagree must be arrested and prosecuted by Nepali authorities, Human Rights Watch said. At the same time, the police should avoid excessive force in maintaining order.
While a US offer to resettle 60,000 or more Bhutanese refugees has given hope to many of the 106,000 refugees living in Nepal, some refugees see the resettlement offer as undercutting the prospects for repatriation and have increasingly resorted to threats and violence to prevent other refugees from advocating for solutions other than return to Bhutan. In a report published earlier this month, “Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in India and Nepal,” Human Rights Watch warned that tensions in the camps are growing.
“Although there is no question that Bhutanese refugees have a right to return, they also have the right to make choices on essential issues like resettlement without threats, intimidation or violence” said Frelick.
In a related development, a group of Bhutanese refugees this week attempted a march to return to Bhutan. Bhutan and Nepal are separated by a strip of land belonging to India. Indian police forces clashed with the refugees at the Mechi River bridge that serves as the crossing with Nepal. Refugees pelted the police with stones, and Indian police fired on the demonstrators, killing one and injuring others. The standoff ended after local leaders talked with Indian authorities who have agreed to forward their demands to the relevant officials in New Delhi.
Repatriation of Bhutanese refugees must be accompanied by the restoration of rights, and should include monitoring and assistance from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. At the present time, none of the conditions that would allow them to return safely and in dignity have been met, Human Rights Watch said.
“Groups of Bhutanese refugees should not resort to violence in exercising their right of return, and the Indian police should also act with restraint and compassion for the refugees,” Frelick said.
The Bhutanese refugee crisis began in 1991 when Bhutan started to expel ethnic Nepalis, a policy that resulted in the expulsion of one-sixth of the country’s population. So far, in complete violation of international law, Bhutan has not allowed a single refugee to return. Consequently, the refugees have endured years in cramped camps with no prospects for solutions, conditions that have led to domestic violence and other social problems that have come after protracted periods in closed camps.
Before any solutions can be achieved, Nepal must provide sufficient security in the camps to enable refugees to express their opinions and exchange information freely, Human Rights Watch said.
At the same time, the United States and other resettlement countries should expand an information campaign in the camps to reiterate that the choice of resettlement is voluntary and does not in any way extinguish the right of return. The countries offering resettlement need to provide detailed information about the rights and benefits for refugees that choose to resettle in their countries. Together with the rest of the international community, particularly India, these countries should bring pressure to bear on Bhutan to permit the refugees to return home in safety and dignity and to end discrimination against its ethnic Nepali citizens.

Foreign Minister says all options open for Bhutanese refugees

Source: Nepalnews.com
Foreign Minister Sahana Pradhan has said the government is open to all options for finding solution of the protracted Bhutanese refugee crisis.

Speaking at the Foreign Affairs Committee of the parliament on Wednesday, minister Pradhan also informed that repatriation process and resettlement, including third-country resettlement, of the refugees would go hand in hand.

Pradhan also mentioned that the US government had shown interest in taking around 60,000 refugees. Similarly, Australia pledged to take in 1000 refugees and Demark only 200.

She said the decision was according to the willingness shown by the donors because they wish to resettle the refugees in their own country rather than in UNHCR-managed camps in eastern Nepal.

She, however, noticed that resettlement of the refugees would bring further problems but did not elaborate it.

Canada, Netherlands and other Scandinavian countries have also expressed their interest in taking refugees but the number has not been fixed.

After failing to give Bhutan any option to take back its citizens, the Nepal government has now said it is open to three major options: repatriation, assimilation and resettlement of the refugees as per the demand from donor countries. nepalnews.com ia May 09 07

Welcome

Hello Everyone,
The ineffectiveness of the bilateral negotiations between Nepal & Bhutan, the verification results and the conditions set by Bhutan for repatriation have indicated clearly that repatriation is NOT only the feasible option for every refugees to keep waiting for another decade for solution.

Although repatriation would be the primary solution for all Bhutanese, there are now fewer prospects left for ALL refugees to return home in the immediate future and the situation demands exploring all options. The UNHCR proposal of third country resettlement would be ideal package for those who feel/see no prospect of repatriation and feasibility of integration in Nepal. We know the repatriation process got stuck and there is no choice left than to look for other alternatives. The non-action from our side to accept and work for the solution at this time would lead to chaos in the refugee community due to the escalation of frustration among the people.

We all know that Repatriation, Third-Country Resettlement and Local Assimilation are only options for durable solution to Bhutanese Refugee problem.
Lets work for it.
Lets not make these problem linger any more in the face of time. Or else our new generations will blame us that we did not do any thing to resolve this crisis like we do now.

Please feel free to post your comments at durablesolution@gmail.com.
You can also send me articles so that I can publish it.

Thanks