Nepal-Bhutan relations
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The Nepal-Bhutan 15th ministerial talks held in Thimpu on October 20-21 have made an important and dramatic breakthrough on the refugee issue that had been a big headache for both the Himalayan Kingdoms. It has given a renewed hope to more than 1,00,000 Bhutanese refugees, who have been living in the camps in eastern Nepal for the last 12 years, to return home safely with due honour and dignity.
In the meticulous negotiation between the diplomats of Nepal and Bhutan, Thimpu has agreed to take back all Bhutanese nationals after their verification. The bilateral joint verification team has been working to verify the refugees as per the agreement reached between the two nations in December 2000, which came under fire by refugee leaders and human rights organizations.
Nepal and Bhutan in the 10th round of ministerial talks, had agreed to classify the refugees into four categories—genuine Bhutanese citizens forcibly evicted from their homes, those who left Bhutan on their own will, criminals and non-Bhutanese. The joint verification team was formed to do the business and report to their respective governments for the purpose of refugee repatriation.
The joint verification team has already completed the verification process in Khudunabari camp, one of the six camps, and is soon to begin in the rest of camps. As per the agreement between the two countries, refugees, whose cases have been cleared by the verification team, would return early next year. As some national and international human rights and social organizations working for the refugees including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch Lutheran World Federation, Habitat International Coalition and the Bhutanese Refugee Support Group, criticized the outcome of Khudunabari verification, the joint team has assured to correct the mistakes, if any, while reviewing the appeal by the refugees. There is a provision that refugees, who do not agree with the result of the verification and can appeal for the review and re-verification. Some refugees have already registered their appeal in the joint verification team’s office demanding review of its earlier decision.
The issue remained as a vexing problem for more than one decade due to adamant posture of both sides. Bhutan maintained that all living in refugee camps were not Bhutanese citizens. However, Nepal said all refugees are Bhutanese nationals, who must be repatriated to their country.
Refugees, who are mostly of Nepali origin, were reportedly evicted from their homeland in a shrewdly orchestrated move by Bhutanese government since early 1990. However, Thimpu denies it saying the move was taken only against illegal immigrants in order to protect its indigenous culture—the claim refugees contradict. Refugee leaders claim that more than 90 per cent refugees still possess valid documents to prove their Bhutanese nationality. At the same time, Thimpu fears that the return of the refugees may change the demographic balance, which may also pose threat to its pristine environment and indigenous culture.
From the human rights perspective, more than 1,00,000 refugees are rendered stateless, which is against the principle of universal human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its Article 15, states that every human being has the right to nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of nationality nor should be denied right to change nationality.
Moreover, it has placed a great burden to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and already resource strapped and poverty-stricken Nepal. The early solution of the refugee issue was, thus, a must. The …….. round of ministerial meeting has made a great step forward for the permanent resolution of the problem that has not only strained friendly relations of the two close neighbours but also made the fate of so many people uncertain.
The problem began as some Bhutanese of Nepali origin, inspired by the success of democratic movement in Nepal, raised the issue of democracy, human rights. Although the matter pertaining to democracy and human rights is a universal issue, it is unwise for any country to interfere in the internal affairs of other country in the name of supporting democratic and human rights movement. It is the internal issue of Bhutanese people to decide which type of government they want. Any political or other problems must be resolved by Bhutanese government and its people through mutual negotiation.
What Nepal’s concern is that refugees must be repatriated, as the presence of refugees has put tremendous pressure on Nepal’s economy, social harmony, demography and environment. Given this complicated situation, diplomats of both the nations have adopted very practical and pragmatic approach to resolve the crisis, for which they deserve appreciation. They have gone even one step forward to seek international support in the repatriation and rehabilitation of the repatriated Bhutanese. Some international donors have already shown interest in helping the repatriation and rehabilitation process.
There has been criticism from some quarters regarding the decision of the bilateral talks on refugees, which does not appear fair. This is the beginning—a positive beginning—for the resolution of the longstanding problem. It has created a positive environment, which could not be done in the last one decade.
At the same time, attempts are being made from some section and elements to drag India into the issue, which is not at all wise. It is true that Nepal and Bhutan do not share common border and Bhutanese refugees entered Nepal via Indian territories. Nepal and India have open border and free movement of people across the border. Taking advantage of this, Bhutanese refugees entered Nepal via India. Moreover, Nepal and Bhutan are capable of bringing about the solution to the problem and that no third party’s involvement is necessary. This is at the interest of both Nepal and Bhutan.
Nepal and Bhutan are small neighbours sharing many commonalities. Both the countries are monarchical, landlocked and least developed. As member of SAARC, Nepal and Bhutan can achieve much more through mutual cooperation. Thus, the early resolution of refugee issue is not only at the interest of Nepal and Bhutan but also the entire South Asia.
The Nepal-Bhutan 15th ministerial talks held in Thimpu on October 20-21 have made an important and dramatic breakthrough on the refugee issue that had been a big headache for both the Himalayan Kingdoms. It has given a renewed hope to more than 1,00,000 Bhutanese refugees, who have been living in the camps in eastern Nepal for the last 12 years, to return home safely with due honour and dignity.
In the meticulous negotiation between the diplomats of Nepal and Bhutan, Thimpu has agreed to take back all Bhutanese nationals after their verification. The bilateral joint verification team has been working to verify the refugees as per the agreement reached between the two nations in December 2000, which came under fire by refugee leaders and human rights organizations.
Nepal and Bhutan in the 10th round of ministerial talks, had agreed to classify the refugees into four categories—genuine Bhutanese citizens forcibly evicted from their homes, those who left Bhutan on their own will, criminals and non-Bhutanese. The joint verification team was formed to do the business and report to their respective governments for the purpose of refugee repatriation.
The joint verification team has already completed the verification process in Khudunabari camp, one of the six camps, and is soon to begin in the rest of camps. As per the agreement between the two countries, refugees, whose cases have been cleared by the verification team, would return early next year. As some national and international human rights and social organizations working for the refugees including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch Lutheran World Federation, Habitat International Coalition and the Bhutanese Refugee Support Group, criticized the outcome of Khudunabari verification, the joint team has assured to correct the mistakes, if any, while reviewing the appeal by the refugees. There is a provision that refugees, who do not agree with the result of the verification and can appeal for the review and re-verification. Some refugees have already registered their appeal in the joint verification team’s office demanding review of its earlier decision.
The issue remained as a vexing problem for more than one decade due to adamant posture of both sides. Bhutan maintained that all living in refugee camps were not Bhutanese citizens. However, Nepal said all refugees are Bhutanese nationals, who must be repatriated to their country.
Refugees, who are mostly of Nepali origin, were reportedly evicted from their homeland in a shrewdly orchestrated move by Bhutanese government since early 1990. However, Thimpu denies it saying the move was taken only against illegal immigrants in order to protect its indigenous culture—the claim refugees contradict. Refugee leaders claim that more than 90 per cent refugees still possess valid documents to prove their Bhutanese nationality. At the same time, Thimpu fears that the return of the refugees may change the demographic balance, which may also pose threat to its pristine environment and indigenous culture.
From the human rights perspective, more than 1,00,000 refugees are rendered stateless, which is against the principle of universal human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its Article 15, states that every human being has the right to nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of nationality nor should be denied right to change nationality.
Moreover, it has placed a great burden to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and already resource strapped and poverty-stricken Nepal. The early solution of the refugee issue was, thus, a must. The …….. round of ministerial meeting has made a great step forward for the permanent resolution of the problem that has not only strained friendly relations of the two close neighbours but also made the fate of so many people uncertain.
The problem began as some Bhutanese of Nepali origin, inspired by the success of democratic movement in Nepal, raised the issue of democracy, human rights. Although the matter pertaining to democracy and human rights is a universal issue, it is unwise for any country to interfere in the internal affairs of other country in the name of supporting democratic and human rights movement. It is the internal issue of Bhutanese people to decide which type of government they want. Any political or other problems must be resolved by Bhutanese government and its people through mutual negotiation.
What Nepal’s concern is that refugees must be repatriated, as the presence of refugees has put tremendous pressure on Nepal’s economy, social harmony, demography and environment. Given this complicated situation, diplomats of both the nations have adopted very practical and pragmatic approach to resolve the crisis, for which they deserve appreciation. They have gone even one step forward to seek international support in the repatriation and rehabilitation of the repatriated Bhutanese. Some international donors have already shown interest in helping the repatriation and rehabilitation process.
There has been criticism from some quarters regarding the decision of the bilateral talks on refugees, which does not appear fair. This is the beginning—a positive beginning—for the resolution of the longstanding problem. It has created a positive environment, which could not be done in the last one decade.
At the same time, attempts are being made from some section and elements to drag India into the issue, which is not at all wise. It is true that Nepal and Bhutan do not share common border and Bhutanese refugees entered Nepal via Indian territories. Nepal and India have open border and free movement of people across the border. Taking advantage of this, Bhutanese refugees entered Nepal via India. Moreover, Nepal and Bhutan are capable of bringing about the solution to the problem and that no third party’s involvement is necessary. This is at the interest of both Nepal and Bhutan.
Nepal and Bhutan are small neighbours sharing many commonalities. Both the countries are monarchical, landlocked and least developed. As member of SAARC, Nepal and Bhutan can achieve much more through mutual cooperation. Thus, the early resolution of refugee issue is not only at the interest of Nepal and Bhutan but also the entire South Asia.
Comments
Post a Comment