Refugees Have Right of Return, but Should Be Free to Choose Other Options
(Kathmandu, May 17, 2007) A US offer to resettle 60,000 Bhutanese
refugees has given hope to many of the 106,000 refugees living in Nepal
for more than 16 years, but has also heightened tensions in the camps,
Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Refugees who insist
on repatriation as the only acceptable solution have been threatening and
intimidating those who voice support for resettlement in the US.
The Bhutanese refugee crisis began in 1991 when Bhutan began to expel
ethnic Nepalis, a policy that resulted in the expulsion of one-sixth of the
country’s population. But since the announcement of the US offer in
October 2006, groups of refugees who insist that the only acceptable
solution is return to Bhutan have threatened refugees favorable to
resettlement.
“Refugees fundamentally have the right to return to a country that
expelled them,” said Bill Frelick, refugee policy director at Human Rights
Watch. “But all refugees also have the right to make essential choices
about their lives without threats and intimidation.”
The 86-page report, “Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for
Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India,” discusses the possible solutions
to this protracted refugee situation and the choices the refugees now face.
It describes conditions of the ethnic Nepali refugees who have languished
in exile in Nepal and India, and also documents continuing discrimination
against the ethnic Nepalis still living in Bhutan, who live in fear that they
too could be stripped of their citizenship and expelled from the country.
“While repatriation would be the best option for most refugees, it can only
be viable if Bhutan upholds its duty to guarantee the returnees’ human
rights,” said Frelick. “Until then, repatriation to Bhutan cannot be
promoted as a durable solution for the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.”
So far, Bhutan has not allowed a single refugee to return. Consequently,
the refugees have endured years in cramped camps with no prospects for
solutions. The report documents life in the camps and domestic violence
and other social problems that have come after protracted periods in
closed camps.
“We don’t want to be dependent on others,” a Bhutanese refugee told
Human Rights Watch. “Half our lives have been spent as refugees. We
don’t want that tag on our children’s forehead. We want them to be proud
citizens.”
Since the announcement of the US resettlement offer, tensions in the
camps have been building. Partly, this is because of rumors and
misinformation about the nature of the offer itself. It is also due to
intimidation by groups militantly opposed to resettlement who insist that
the only acceptable solution is return to Bhutan.
“People feel insecure,” said a young man. “If others hear you are looking
for other options than repatriation, they will condemn you as not favoring
repatriation, or diluting the prospects for repatriation. Others will accuse
you of having no love for the country.”
Human Rights Watch called on the Nepalese government to prosecute
intimidators who threaten or harm those who exercise their rights to
freedom of opinion, expression, and association.
“Before any solutions can be achieved, Nepal must provide sufficient
security in the camps to enable refugees to express their opinions and
exchange information freely,” said Frelick.
The report discusses the possible solutions to this protracted refugee
situation and the choices the refugees now face.
“To be effective, the US resettlement offer cannot operate in isolation,”
said Frelick. “The Bhutanese refugees need genuine choices.”
This requires a three-pronged strategy. First, resettlement should be a real
option for as many refugees as want it. This means that other countries
should join in a coordinated effort to maximize the number of resettlement
places. Bhutanese refugees living outside the camps in Nepal and India
should also be eligible. Nepal should cooperate on the resettlement option,
in particular, by issuing exit permits without delay to refugees accepted for
resettlement.
Second, Nepal should grant citizenship to those refugees who express a
preference for local integration over resettlement or repatriation. Finally,
the United States, India and other countries should redouble their efforts to
persuade Bhutan to allow refugees who want to repatriate to do so under
conditions that are compatible with human rights law.
“The possibility that many refugees may now choose other options should
make it much easier for Bhutan to accept repatriation,” said Frelick.
“Resettlement countries should press Bhutan for a genuinely
comprehensive solution to this protracted refugee situation.”
To read the report, “Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for
Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India,” please visit:
http://hrw.org/reports/2007/bhutan0507/
For more of Human Rights Watch’s work on Bhutan, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=bhutan
For more of Human Rights Watch’s work on Refugees, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=refugees&document_limit=0,2
