FMR 29 Resettlement for Bhutanese 59 Resettlement for Bhutanese refugees by Christer Lænkholm

The US offer to resettle 60,000 of the 106,000 Bhutanese Many refugees see resettlement as refugees in might offer a solution to this protracted tantamount to defeat and a means to absolve the Bhutanese government of situation. Resettlement may not be a perfect solution its legal and moral responsibility to but after 16 years of exile refugees may well choose it as the make amends for the blatant violation best option available. of their rights. Some opponents of resettlement have threatened Bhutanese Hindus of Nepalese a result of donor fatigue. Budgetary refugees who speak out in favour of origin – an estimated one sixth of constraints facing UNHCR and resettlement, leaving many refugees the population of – were the World Food Programme have fearful of expressing their thoughts arbitrarily stripped of their nationality necessitated cuts in the provision of on their future. Having been residents in the early 1990s and either were essential services, including food, fuel, of a for up to 16 years, forcibly expelled from the tiny medical care and shelter materials. many young people have never Himalayan kingdom or fled in Some services which used to be known or cannot remember life in order to escape the enforcement extended to all refugees have now Bhutan. Understandably, few have of restrictive citizenship laws and been limited to the most vulnerable. much enthusiasm for repatriation. other forms of institutionalised The US offer has widened the .1 The Bhutanese live Human Rights Watch reports that generation gap between parents in seven camps in the Jhapa and donor substitution of kerosene by wishing to return and children Morang districts in southeastern less expensive briquettes has led favouring resettlement. Nepal, close to the Indian border, to respiratory and other health frustrated by 15 fruitless rounds of problems. Without kerosene the A survey conducted in 2002 and 2003 bilateral negotiations between the camps now have no lighting at night, found that 80% of the refugees chose governments of Nepal and Bhutan with impacts on young people’s repatriation as their most desired and the failure of the international studies. Women complain that solution but in the context of bleak community to secure durable conditions in the camps, with large prospects for repatriation and an offer solutions to their displacement. numbers of people being forced to for facilitated resettlement in one of live together in close confinement the richest countries in the world, this The Nepalese authorities have in deteriorating circumstances, are is likely to change. UNHCR estimates consistently seen the refugees as not conducive to creating a safe that up to 80% of the population the responsibility of the Kingdom environment for women and girls. will apply for resettlement. of Bhutan and have pressed for resettlement and repatriation as The Bhutanese There has been much speculation a solution, not integration. Host are thus trapped between their about why the US announced in communities have expressed forced dependency on international October 2006 its willingness to resettle concern over the refugees’ adverse assistance and the increasing refugees. Cynics have pointed to the effects on local communities, reluctance of the international desire of the Bush Administration citing over-exploitation of water community to keep providing for to be seen to fulfil their refugee and forest resources, damage of their needs. While the resettlement resettlement quota by absorbing a roads by transport vehicles serving offer has given hope to many, the group of politically unthreatening the camps and competition for lack of clear information from the US refugees. Unofficially it has been employment as the refugees drive authorities or about the prospects for announced that vulnerable persons down wages. There are reports other durable solutions – repatriation and families will be given highest of increasing rates of crime and to Bhutan or local integration in priority for resettlement but civil sexual and gender-based violence. Nepal – has resulted in increasing society groups have voiced concern anxiety and tension among the that selection will be based on The Bhutanese refugees are restricted refugees. The fate of the remaining language and educational skills, to the camps and prohibited from 46,000 refugees and of up to 45,000 leading to a brain drain in the engaging in income-generating unregistered refugees in Nepal and camps, especially among teachers activities, even within the camp remains unclear. Organisations and health workers, and a further confines. As a consequence, they are working in the camps have expressed deterioration in conditions for those entirely dependent on the support concern that the unofficially remaining. There are also fears of the international community for announced resettlement offer may among the refugees that the offer their survival. With the passage of attract new refugees, as well as local might be withdrawn at any time and time the support system in the camps Nepalese economic migrants. without warning. Refugees want has come under increasing strain as reassurance that a decision on their 60 Bulgaria’s treatment of asylum seekers FMR 29

asked to choose of a secure legal status for any between a future returning ethnic Nepali refugees. in the US and their right to return to Thus for many refugees the ‘next- their own country. best choice’ might be the best option for their and their children’s future. It is essential that Realistically, a lot of the refugees the refugees’ right to may end up getting low-skilled self-determination is and low-paid jobs and finding respected and that difficulties integrating in the USA they are empowered – but they will be able to offer to make well- their children the possibility of a informed decisions better education and job prospects about the various than would be possible if they stay consequences of languishing in the refugee camps. all three durable solution options. Christer Lænkholm ([email protected]) is They may be forced a Relief Officer for DanChurchAid to make some (DCA www.dca.dk). DCA is a pragmatic decisions. long-time partner of the Lutheran At the moment World Federation (LWF www. repatriation is not lutheranworld.org) which has a realistic prospect; worked with Bhutanese refugees in the human rights Nepal since they arrived in 1991. situation of the Bhutanese remaining ethnic For further information, see the refugee distributing Nepalis in Bhutan April 2007 report of Human Rights food to other is highly precarious Watch, ‘The Need for Durable refugees, despite announced Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees Timal camp, Christer Laenkholm Christer moves towards in Nepal and India’ (http://hrw. Nepal democratisation org/reports/2007/bhutan0507). part to accept the offer of resettlement in the Buddhist kingdom. In the 1. For the background to the Bhutanese displacement, see does not extinguish their right to absence of a UNHCR presence FMR7 (www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR07/fmr7.7.pdf); return to Bhutan. Despite Bhutan’s in Bhutan and given Bhutan’s FMR10 (http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR10/ fmr10.18.pdf); FMR19 (www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/ intransigence, refugees have not unwillingness to entertain the idea FMR19/FMR19update.pdf); and FMR25 (www.fmreview. given up hope that one day they will that UNHCR could facilitate and org/FMRpdfs/FMR25/FMR2545.pdf). be allowed to return home. Some monitor voluntary repatriation of the refugees now fear that they are being refugees, there can be no guarantees

Bulgaria’s treatment of asylum seekers by Valeria Ilareva

Asylum seekers face appalling treatment at the immigration to write the application in front of detention centre in Bulgaria. Treated as undocumented me in his language, Albanian. He writes it. I accompany Alfred to find immigrants, they are penalised and deported – in blatant an official to witness receipt of his violation of Bulgarian law and Refugee Convention obligations. asylum application. The official starts shouting that Alfred has already Alfred is a 16-year-old unaccom- who come to the detention centre presented an asylum application. panied asylum seeker from Kosovo. to interview asylum seekers, have When I try to explain that Bulgaria’s Frightened and confused, he looks visited him. On 14 September 2007, Law on Asylum and Refugees obliges even younger. He has been detained I visit him for a second time, having state officials to receive asylum at the immigration detention centre in advised him the week before to applications and forward them for Sofia since May 2007, held under the submit a second asylum application. consideration to the competent body, same regime as adults. No officials He says he cannot do so but I give she berates me for telling her how from the State Agency for Refugees1, him a sheet of paper and ask him to do her job. We are startled by her