Is Bhutan ready to resolve refugee impasse?
He can do nothing but he cannot say he can’t. And he is still taking advantage of the weak political will of Nepalese politicians in raising the issue of Bhutanese refugees for last two decades.
Bhutanese Prime Minister Jigmi Thinley on his latest visit to Nepal re-spoke his regular cliché expressing his government’s willingness to take back genuine Bhutanese from among the refugees taking asylum in Nepal. It has been said since the eviction spree started in early 1990. Now, Nepal is convulsed within its internal turmoil while Bhutan takes this resting period to campaign around the globe that refugees living in eastern districts are not all genuine. Nepal fails to counter. Therefore, this cliché, this satire.
Bhutan never said, it is not serious on resolving the problem, for which it agreed to sit for 15 rounds of bilateral talks at home minister and foreign minister level. Yet, no results in hand — the whole process of bilateral talks seems like a hoax Bhutan created. The greatest fear Bhutan has ever since the two countries completed verification in Khudunabari camp, is gradually diminishing. Though, since eviction years, Bhutanese rulers claimed less than 30 percent of the refugees registered in UNHCR camps are genuine Bhutan, the verification proved 72 percent of them have evidences of their Bhutanese citizenry. Bhutan knew, it was challenging to take back over 70,000 of the refugees, politically aware and grown up for resistance, revenge. The resettlement to third countries has provided some relief in terms that physical presence of these refugees will not be anymore in Bhutan. The number is down creating a playing field for Bhutan.
However, physical presence of these evicted citizens is not only the challenges that Bhutan will be facing in future. From beyond seven seas, the refugees are likely to continue raising hands in favor of their brethrens inside the country and most appropriately to be recognized as Bhutanese Diaspora with right to return or invest in Bhutan if they ever wish. The country delegates from Bhutan have to return without answering the international community when some 100 government representatives raised questions over Bhutan’s sincerity over resolving the impasse during December 4 human rights review at Human Rights Council, Geneva. The team escaped, not for long and faced similar stern words from the international community when Bhutanese representative in Geneva Yeshey Dorji tried answering those questions during Human Rights Council’s 13th session in Geneva on March 18. Just with these two instances, the Bhutanese rulers have adequately understood that they cannot continue escaping from the problem for ever. At any point of time, it is essential that Bhutan must come up to accept some to receive warn company of its donors.
The latest visit of Thinley to Kathmandu was to massage Nepalese leaders for resuming bilateral talks — thanks Girija Prasad Koirala’s 13th day ritual ceremony turn out to be a good opportunity to hide out his real intention behind the travel. Bhutan knows it has lesser burden now even if all remaining refugees, those who don’t wish to resettle, have to be repatriated. The eight western countries have vowed to absorb over 75,000. Additionally, it should have felt that campaigning by the resettled Bhutanese in west might not stop unless some portions of the refugees are taken back. This will give double benefits for Bhutan — to fool international community that refugees have been repatriated and clamping on intensified campaigning resettled Bhutanese started. Pictures are bleak that the new tactics would work out in favor of Bhutan. It comes out when time matures.
Since the last bilateral talks, in both the countries, the political structure has changed dramatically. While Nepal becomes republic, Bhutan choose to pose itself as a constitutional monarchy — be it like Mohan Sumsher promulgating constitution in late 1940s in Nepal. The two years of ‘democratic exercise’ in Bhutan by the Thinley-led Druk Phunsum Tshokpa (DPT) government has demonstrated that Kings still have final hands in taking decision on issues of national importance. Many important decisions taken during this period are by King Jigme Khesar (previously spelled as Gesar) while government is limited to running the daily administration. And it is yet to be studied whether the young king is as cruel and tyrant as his father was. His term has started with political liberalization in addition to his indoctrination in democratic society of the Oxford University. If he is, by chance, different than his father, not many days should pass by before news about resolution of the Bhutanese refugee impasse circulates like wild fire. The merit goes to him.
Under new circumstances, both the countries must start dialogue from zero. The previous agreements must not prevail. Bhutan, since the eviction time, repeatedly said it is willing to take some 30,000 of the refugees. In post-resettlement period, supposedly after 2012, the remaining refugee population will not be more than this figure. Nepal must take stern position, unlike what Sher Bahadur Deuba did, the greatest blunder to agree on four categories, during talks with Bhutan in future that all refugees registered in UNHCR camps must be repatriated – no matter whether the case is mix marriage, unless the individual puts off his/her willingness to go Bhutan.
Nepal has better opportunity to raise the issue during the SAARC summit scheduled for April last in Thimphu. Hints are already on card that Bhutan will not issue permits for People’s SAARC event to those who are likely to speak on Bhutanese refugee problem. It depends on how Nepal, busy with its own constitution making and peace process, can spare time to address the prolong crisis that has not become an issue of lesser priority.