 |
Kathmandu Monday December 31, 2001 Paush 16, 2058.
|
Role of UNHCR after
verification
By D N S Dhakal
What next? That is the obvious question in the
minds of Bhutanese refugees and seasoned Bhutan observers. About 12,500 Bhutanese
refugees, who were verified in 153 days, await anxiously the pronouncement of the Joint
Verification Team, which is unlikely to come unless the Joint Ministerial Committee sorts
out the differences on the issue of categorisation. Nepal rightly insists that whether
Bhutanese refugees left Bhutan under security threat, signed the so-called voluntary
migration form (VMF), or have criminal records— they are Bhutanese, and the concern
of the Bhutan government. A concession HMG Nepal wants to make is to allow non-Bhutanese
people to assimilate in the Kingdom irrespective of where they came from.
This is not what Bhutan wants to achieve out of
this bitterly contested issue of over one decade. Genuine Bhutanese refugees who have
experience of working with their counterparts in Thimphu are yet understand why in the
first place the Royal Government created the refugee problem, and after having created
one, why a fuss over their identity when everybody, including the King, knows in detail
who is and who is not a Bhutanese in the camps. We all agreed then, and we are for it now,
that we should discourage outside marriages and stop illegal immigration, if any. Then,
unless the Royal Government has a design to denationalise a large chunk of its citizens,
notably those who were compelled to sign the VMF, why insist upon the categorisation. For
those of us in the movement fairness and justice are important considerations. However, we
may not be able to do anything if the two countries decide against our wishes. After all
about 10 million people were made to cross the newly created international boundary at the
time of India’s independence; the German nation was divided into two sovereign
countries until the demise of the Soviet Union, and the Korean people still are waging a
struggle to achieve family reunions. When nations talk, they talk about national
interests; individual’s rights, even those of a community, take backseat in the
decision-making progress. This is not new; examples are everywhere. We appeal to HMG Nepal
and the International community, that justice be dispensed to those deserving it.
Be that as it may. Nepal should not act
unilaterally in dealing with Bhutan. The UNHCR should play a proactive role in finding a
lasting solution to the refugee problem. Paragraph 1 of the Statute of the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (General Assembly Resolution 428 (V) of 14
December 1950) formally mandates the High Commissioner to provide international protection
to refugees falling within his/her mandate, and to seek durable solutions to their
problems. In addition, in the Preamble of the Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees, the High Contracting Parties make explicit that UNHCR is one UN organ that could
participate in the promotion and monitoring of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In fact, refugees are always victims of human rights violation; protection of human rights
is the cornerstone of the UN’s political philosophy.
The Bhutanese refugees are victims of human
rights violation. They participated in the protest rallies of 1990 when they were denied
the right to practice their own language, culture and tradition, besides the citizenship
right of spouses and children, particularly spouses of foreign origin. The participation
provoked the anger of the security forces who perpetrated rape, plunder and forcible
expulsion. Of those who fled, the overwhelming majority sought shelter in Nepal. In the
process Nepal involved UNHCR in providing protection and humanitarian assistance. As of
now 100 million plus US dollars are spent for the up-keep of the seven UNHCR camps,
including through WFP food assistance. This is not a small investment. A return that the
international donors must expect from this investment is that the charity they dole out
creates a long-term positive impact in the lives of victims whether they are repatriated
or rehabilitated elsewhere. UNHCR is the competent authority to take the lead role, and it
is one of the important torchbearers of the UN General Assembly’s philosophy.
The donor countries had expressed this sentiment
during the 7th Round Table Meeting (RTM) held in November 2000 in Thimphu. Madame
Watanabe, Assistance UN Secretary General and the RTM Co-Chairperson, had pointed out that
‘a humanitarian approach is central to the work of the UN system in Bhutan, and this
is embodied in the basic document which comprise the UN Charter and the Covenant of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. Further she emphasised that ‘UNDP stands
to assist the Royal Government, if and when requested, to prepare for the reintegration of
the refugees from Nepal’. Bhutan’s important bilateral development partner,
Denmark, was more explicit when its representative said ‘There is a growing
perception among Bhutanese of Nepalese descent--so-called Lhotsampas--that they are
treated as second-class citizens. It is important that the National Assembly and the
government eliminate discriminatory laws and practices so that all permanent residents of
Bhutan can be fully integrated into Bhutanese society’. Japanese Ambassador, Hiroshi
Hirabayashi, had said, ‘Japan sincerely hopes that agreement be reached between
Bhutan and Nepal in cooperation with UNHCR for a fair and equitable solution of the
refugee problem bearing in mind the political, economic and social implication in Bhutan’.
Except for the representative of the Indian government, all participants from abroad,
including that of UNICEF and other funding agencies, expressed their concerns at the
plight of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.
Therefore, for all practical purpose, the
Bhutanese refugee issue is already internationalised, and the international community is
sympathetic towards their plight. The flow of money has not been too tight, and the camps
in Jhapa are considered some of the well-organise camps in UNHCR’s history. The
refugees have made the best use of the opportunity available in adversity: be it in
schools, informal education, skill development or in health awareness. The cost
effectiveness of every dollar spent in the Bhutanese refugee camps is not inferior to
investment in the social sectors of many developing countries, if not better. The
international community has appreciated this, and the visiting US dignitary this year
stated to the refugees in the camps ‘the State Department knows about them and their
good conduct’.
After having spent a decade in an unconventional
setting an ordinary refugee hopes to lead a normal life to raise his/her family. The
international community must support the involvement of UNHCR at all levels, starting from
strict implementation of the principle of non-refoulement to receiving the refugees at the
border in Bhutan, to finding a durable solution for those who will not qualify to return.
As the mandated organ of the UN General Assembly, UNHCR is better placed to monitor the
reintegration process of the returnees in Bhutan, including their human rights
rehabilitation. UNHCR is not an agency of international diplomacy. In 1990, Paul Mathew,
UNDP Resident Representative at Thimphu, was unceremoniously transferred because of his
explicit concern at the highhanded policy of the Royal Government towards Nepali
Bhutanese. Therefore, unless there is concurrence of opinion among the international
community and HMG Nepal on how to handle the post repatriation scenario in Bhutan, the
returnees may face yet another ordeal, possibly becoming refugees for the second time.
Other Stories
|
