|
|
REFUGEE PROBLEM:INTERNATIONALISATION
IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE
By Rakesh Chhetri
Published in the Himalayan Times December 20, 2004
More than a decade
of degrading exile has brought Bhutanese refugees humiliation,
hopelessness, despair and loss of legal status to a point where they
have now nothing to lose. They cannot be any more dispossessed than
they are today.
Nepal had earlier set three options: solution through bilateral
talks, seeking Indian assistance, and internationalisation of the
issue. Fifteen rounds of Nepal-Bhutan Ministerial Joint Committee
talks have been held in the last eleven years, which did not yield
any results. Refugees have been totally excluded from the so-called
Nepal-Bhutan bilateral talks, created for their repatriation. The
bilateral process has become a total failure. Nepal has done
everything in its power to please Bhutan for a negotiated
settlement, but it failed. Bhutan has not budged an inch from its
original stand.
Nepal has even offered integration of left-over refugees in Nepal,
if Bhutan agreed to take back those refugees (Category I, II & IV of
Khudunabri camp) it accepted as originating from Bhutan. Nepal even
signed an agreement called ‘Agreed Position on the Four Categories (APFC)’
with Bhutan during the 14 round of talks in May 2003 in which it
agreed to grant Nepalese citizenship to those people under category
II who do not wish to return to Bhutan. Despite this magnanimous
gesture, Bhutan showed no interest in taking back its citizens.
Instead, Bhutanese officials gave the refugees in the camps
outrageous terms and conditions for repatriation to discourage them
from opting for voluntary repatriation. Nepal would then be obliged
to grant them Nepalese citizenship under the agreement. For Bhutan
the agreement holds good even today. How long can Nepal be fooled by
Bhutan?
Bhutan is not only the closest ally, but a ‘strategic partner’ of
India in the region. Thus, India is unable to exert any pressure.
This was made amply clear during the Bhutanese king’s November visit
to India. The refugee issue was not discussed in New Delhi. Bhutan
has played India’s ‘goodwill’ for it against Nepal in all bilateral
talks to its fullest benefit. The refugees very well understand the
cordial Indo-Bhutan friendship and acknowledge that their problem is
not India but their own tyrannical and despotic ruler. India has
time and again insisted that Bhutanese refugee issue should be
resolved bilaterally.
As India’s assistance is not available, Nepal should now opt for the
third option — internationalisation of the issue.
Internationalisation does not mean mere awareness of problems by the
international community. It requires a lot of homework by the host
country. The host country must officially present the issue to
appropriate forums or powers to prevent Bhutan from continuing its
ethnic cleansing policy and to minimise its own burden. The
international community has tremendously commended Nepal for hosting
Bhutanese as well as many refugees from other countries. Nepal
should invite international community to find a durable solution of
the refugee issue, otherwise it will be left alone to shoulder the
entire burden.
Nepal made the biggest blunder by creating the official bilateral
committee. There is hardly any international instance of the two
governments (host and the evictor) entering into a contract for
repatriation of the refugees. Refugees’ repatriation needs
international glare and support. Instead of inviting Bhutan for
talks, Nepal should have entrusted all responsibilities pertaining
to Bhutanese refugees, including verification, repatriation and
rehabilitation process in Bhutan, to UNHCR, as it does with Tibetan
and other refugees in Nepal.
Had UNHCR been given full responsibility, the refugee issue would
not have been as politicised as it is today. There are several
millions of refugees worldwide. Millions have been repatriated
through UNHCR’s initiative. Millions of Afghan refugees returned
home under UNHCR’s watch. Repatriation is going on in Africa under
UNHCR’s supervision. We have not heard of Afghanistan and Pakistan
governments signing any contract for repatriation of Afghan
refugees. Neither Burundi, Sudan or Chad government is directly
involved in the repatriation of refugees. Then why does Nepal stick
to the bilateral process?
UNHCR ostensibly decided to phase out its involvement in the refugee
camps by the end of 2005, firstly, because it accepts the fact that
there is no hope of refugees returning home through the clumsy
bilateral process, and secondly, AFPC agreement of May 2003 has
provisions for local integration. Thirdly, Nepal and Bhutan have
deliberately excluded UNHCR from the verification, repatriation and
rehabilitation process. It is natural for any UN agency to withdraw
itself from a process in which the concerned governments do not
value its expertise or involvement.
Nepal is concerned about its national interests, so are Bhutan and
India. The refugees cannot remain hostage to the national interest
‘dilemma’ of the three for ever. Every individual needs a legal
status (citizenship or resident status), in order to live a decent
life, to get a job, advance a career, seek health facilities,
educate children, which the refugees have lacked for last fourteen
years. The refugees have no patience to remain in a state of
perpetual statelessness.
Chhetri is editor in chief of bhutannewsonline.com
This story was posted
on December 20, 2004 ( GMT 03.05 AM), since then, it has been viewed
3,439 times
as on January 05, 2005. (GMT 02.30 AM) |
|
