Deepak Thapa

Reading the news a few days ago about the threat by US legislator Frank Wolf to cut off US aid to Nepal over its treatment of Tibetan refugees reminded me immediately of a scene from the film Charlie Wilson’s War, a Hollywood rendition of how one single Congressman, Charlie Wilson (portrayed by Tom Hanks), was able to cajole the US establishment into supporting the Afghan mujahedeen against the invading Soviets. 

Towards the end of the movie, after the tanks had rumbled across the border signifying the humbling of the Soviet Union, Charlie is shown begging money for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. He is bluntly told that no one is interested in Pakistan anymore; ‘Afghanistan’, corrects Charlie.

Although that scene may have used some artistic licence to exaggerate the level of ignorance in the hallowed halls of the US Congress, my first instinct was to wonder if Representative Wolf’s statement reflected a similar lack of understanding of the region. But, no, it turns out he has been to this part of the world, and was even in Tibet in 1997, making him (although incognito) the first sitting member of the US House of Representatives to visit the country since 1959. His reaction is hence all the more surprising since one would have expected him to be quite clued into the geopolitical realities Nepal faces.

Wolf is known to have consistently stood out against China’s human rights record and has taken up arguably worthy causes such as Tibet and Darfur (in both of which, coincidentally, China stands indicted).

His warning apparently came in response to the testimony by Lobsang Sangay, Tibet’s newly elected prime minister-in-exile, before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the House of Representatives. Testifying before the Commission, which Wolf co-chairs, Sangay said, ‘While Tibetans in South Asia are strong in spirit, self-reliant, and determined to reunite our people, we are still refugees. Those in India, while appreciative of Indians’ generosity, do not enjoy full rights. They live in special settlements. They cannot go home to Tibet due to a legitimate fear of persecution. Those in Nepal face additional hardships. Three quarters lack documentation, which the government of Nepal has failed to provide.’

Sangay also said that while the American government has helped in the resettlement of Bhutanese refugees living in Nepal (‘relieving the Nepalese of one intransigent refugee problem’), the Nepalis state has not been willing to go along with a US proposal to similarly resettle some of the Tibetan refugees in Nepal. As the AFP reported, ‘Representative Frank Wolf, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee that determines US funding, said he would try to block funding to Nepal unless it grants exit visas to Tibetans who seek refuge in the United States...We’re not just going to cut them, we’re going to zero them out.’

The US is never likely to resort to such an extreme measure despite Congressman Wolf’s fervent hopes for the single reason that it would pave the way for even greater Chinese influence over Nepal, a fear that laid the foundation of US foreign policy engagement in Nepal following the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

But to go back to the question of Tibetan refugees, until 1989, when Tibet saw the largest anti-China protests since the Dalai Lama’s flight, not much was publicly known about the fate of Tibetans transiting through Nepal en route to Dharamshala. Nepal itself was not yet a country where information was easily forthcoming. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there really was no consistent policy about how the administration dealt with Tibetans.

It was in the 1990s that the refugees making the arduous trans-Himalayan crossing began to draw the attention of the Western media. That was soon followed by Nepal also cracking down on them (at whose urging anyone can guess), and, on occasion, sending them back to a fate that can only be speculated upon. One particular case in 2003 when a group of 11 Tibetan were handed over to Chinese authorities provoked a huge outcry in the West and there were calls again by pro-Tibet groups urging their governments to use their leverage against Nepal.

What many of the Tibet supporters in the West do not seem to be aware is that Nepal has been a welcoming host to Tibetans ever since they began streaming across the border following the Dalai Lama’s flight from Tibet in 1959. From a historical point of view that was only natural. Our relationship with Tibet goes back millennia, and, in fact, all our contacts with China until recent times were one way or another mediated by our ties with Tibet, whether it be Arniko’s deputation to serve Kublai Khan in the 13th century or the tributary missions sent by Nepal to the Qing court every five years from 1792 to 1906.

We should also remember that the Tibetans were provided refuge at a particularly difficult juncture in Nepal’s history. Nepal’s democratic experiment had been cut short and although King Mahendra did seek to curry favour with Beijing as a counterpoise to India, Tibetan refugees were never targeted. The one major blip was the Khampa insurgency of the early 1970s, orchestrated, incidentally, by the CIA.

Over the years it has even proved to be a mutually beneficial relationship, particularly with the Tibetan carpet industry providing a boost to Nepal’s export earnings, not to mention the spiritual tourism that brings in the faithful from the world over for a taste of Tibetan Buddhism.

Certainly, Tibetans will do all they can to draw attention to their cause, but to equate the Nepali government’s helplessness to stand up to China with a perceived anti-democratic character of Nepalis in general is way off the mark. It makes for good press copy when Tibetans are victimised by a Nepali state that could certainly have dealt with them with much more sophistication and a lot less violence. But what reporters and assorted bloggers seem to forget is that the refugees’ struggle is not against Nepal. That is why influential individuals like Wolf should be careful not to turn the crackdown on the refugees into a Tibetan vs Nepali issue.

As Lobsang Sangay mentioned in his testimony, the Tibetan refugees ‘suffer harassment due to the heavy pressure exerted by China in Nepal’. Since that is not news to anyone, the refugee leadership, both within Nepal and without, should display greater understanding of Nepal’s dilemma, particularly in this period of political transition, and do all they can from putting Nepal in a spot. After all, Nepal is home to 20,000 of them as well.

Published on: 10 November 2011 | The Kathmandu Post