Permanent Fiasco?

By John Narayan Parajuli
Nepal has failed to tap into the international pressure to force Bhutan on refugee stalemate. Nepal must quickly make up its mind on other alternatives, lest it faces a permanent fiasco.

Bhutanese refugees have been around for ever. To be homeless for 16 years or more must be like eternity. One can only imagine. But therein lays the problem. We have failed to imagine and comprehend the gravity of being displaced for so long. Worse, our governments were never mentally prepared for the job of taking Bhutan head-on. It’s unfair to say that the Nepalese government alone could have done alone as it lacks direct leverage of any kind on Thimpu. But the potential of what it could have achieved in Thimpu through an indirect channel remains seriously untapped.

Nepal needs to seriously take advantage of international generosity. The international community has been more than willing to help and has helped in maintaining the shelter and supplication for the Bhutanese refugees. Besides providing much needed dollars to run the camps, it has time and again reiterated its stance for an amicable resolution of the refugee issue between Nepal and Bhutan. And often their statements have implicitly put the onus on Bhutan. Bhutan certainly knows that and has often indicated in the past that it is feeling the heat. The agreement on verification modalities between Nepal and Bhutan, the start of the verification process were achieved as a result of international pressure. But unfortunately the pressure wasn’t sustained and Thimpu resorted to its dilly-dallying tactics as the attention diverted.
In June 2003, after an excruciatingly lengthy delay, the Bhutanese government announced the results of the verification exercise conducted in Khudunabari camp in 2001, agreeing to take back those people categorized as bona fide Bhutanese citizens, voluntary emigrants and criminals: a total of 75% of those screened. But the bilateral negotiation between Nepal and Bhutan soon hit another deadlock.
In fact the history of bilateral negotiation on refugee issue between Nepal and Bhutan is a history of deadlocks. Bhutan begins to up the ante as soon as little progress is made. The intention is clear: To frustrate every one and to eventually make them give up the hope of returning refugees to Bhutan.
Since the end of 2003, under periodical international pressure Thimpu has intermittently declared its willingness to resume bilateral talks, while also not failing to pay lip-service to the agreements already made with Nepal to repatriate at least a proportion of the refugees. But far from honoring the agreements, both sides have even failed to convene a minister-level meeting.
The plight of the Bhutanese refugees has been rather more torturous with the passage of time. Most refugees understand that they may never be able to return, yet they haven’t given hope of going back someday. For its part, Nepal has done a lot in humanitarian terms, but has failed to muster enough diplomatic ensure the return of refugees. Worst, it has failed to tap into the international interest to resolve the conflict.

The United States and the European Union are interested in helping Nepal and Bhutan resolve the issue. More importantly they are willing to use their limited influence over Bhutan provided that Nepal takes the initiative.
Visiting US Congressmen led by Jim Kolbe last month urged the Bhutanese government to repatriate its people. He, however, didn’t fail to mention Washington’s willingness to allow some refugees to settle in the States. Washington has exerted periodical pressure on Bhutan. Given its almost non-existent weight over Bhutan, its effect hasn’t been dramatic as would be expected of that of America. However, the Clinton administration did try to bring the Indians on board. It realized that without India putting pressure on Thimpu, Bhutan is unlikely to budge an inch. Clinton allegedly wrote to Bhutan and Nepal to expedite the process, as a result they did. But as Washington and others in the international community shifted their focus to other issues, Bhutan went back to its old modus operandi.

In the light of never-ending stalemate, third country resettlement is a viable alternative. But Nepal government hasn’t fully made up its mind. It still is willing to take a chance and wants to exhaust the repatriation option before pursuing other alternative. Pursuing two other options, local integration and third country solution will absolve Bhutan of its guilt and will send a wrong message. Any remote possibility of repatriation would then have to be abandoned. Once the camps are dismantled Bhutan can argue that all of the Bhutanese refugees are Nepalese—as it has always tried to claim. It’s a difficult choice, but Nepal has to make one. Either it should summon extra ordinary amount of diplomatic will to bring Bhutan back to the negotiating table, or it should explore the remaining two options. In any case, time is running out.