Despite repatriation, the refugee problem is far from settled

NEPAL Police on Sunday busted a gang for forging Bhutanese refugee documents to send Nepali nationals to US and Canada. Forging refugee documents intensified with the start of third country resettlement in 2007. But the larger story is not about criminal enterprises profiting behind a humanitarian situation; it is about the changing dynamics in refugee camps since the resettlement began. Four years after the programme began, Nepal, along with the international community, are looking to shift gears from humanitarian operation to development work in the refugee-hosting areas of eastern Nepal. The shift has been possible because of generous offers from the core group of eight Western countries who have offered to resettle the refugees. The US government deserves special mention for not fixing a ceiling and for already being home to majority of the Bhutanese refugees. But, as the number of refugees in the camps dwindles, a few questions remain unanswered. Will all the refugees be resettled? Will Bhutan ever agree to voluntary repatriation? Dœs the resettlement absolve Thimphu of its crimes? Finally, will there be a local integration? It is clear that not all refugees will be resettled. Some may be disqualified by the recipient countries on account of criminality or posing a “security risk.” Although both the UNHCR and International Organization for Migration (IOM), the agency processing the resettlement, have said that the acceptance rate is high for Bhutanese refugees, there will be some who will be rejected from the process. And there are others who may not declare an interest in resettling.

On repatriation, it is possible that Bhutan may agree eventually as the number of refugees decrease; it is likely to be limited to a select few: family reunion or other humanitarian cases. In April, Bhutanese Prime Minister Lyonchhen Jigmi Y. Thinley, during a visit to Nepal, tried to disown the issue. According to Thinley, the identities and background of the refugees still requires investigation before repatriation can occur. Against the backdrop of such blatant denial, in continuing with the resettlement, there is the danger of absolving Bhutan of its human rights violations. But playing with the future of the refugees who have lived in the camps for over two decades is not the right way of going about it. For its part, the international community should continue to pressure Thimphu to own up its injustices. And for those who will be left behind, the question is whether Nepal will agree to local integration. At this stage Nepali officials have refused to engage with the idea of local integration. But as the camp population declines, from the original 103,000 to estimates of less than 10,000 by the middle of 2015, pressure will mount on Kathmandu to accept local integration as a part of burden-sharing. While Nepal should shoulder its share of burden in resolving the problems of Nepali brethrens, it should also remain alert to the possibility that Thimphu could stonewall the process without shouldering its historical burden.

Published on: 5 July 2011 | The Kathmandu Post