Malinowski kills several birds with one stone

July 16, 2003
7 MIN READ
A
A+
A-

Kathmandu: Killing two birds with one stone is no news. However, what is news is when one stone kills several birds at a time.

The United States Ambassador Michael E. Malinowski falls under the second category for obvious reasons.

A letter signed by Ambassador Malinowski last week created ripples both in Kathmandu and Thimpu when it appeared in one of the broad sheet daily hinting both the countries, Nepal and Bhutan, that the United States was not that happy with the conclusions arrived at by the joint verification team, JVT, as it had so many “inconsistencies”.

While the Ambassador’s letter has alerted the Nepali side to remain vigilant while arriving at any conclusion regarding the repatriation of the genuine Bhutanese refugees, the letter on the other has expressed its deepest concern for the security and the would be social integration of the refugees returning to their motherland.

The letter though is relatively small but then yet is full of meaning as it has touched all the possible aspects of the refugees from their safe return to Bhutan and their possible assimilation in the Bhutanese society albeit in a changed context.

In all, the letter has tried to pin point these shortcomings in the JVT report regarding the Khudnabari refugee camp.

Firstly, the letter points out to the glaring inconsistencies seen in the report. The Ambassador justifies the inconsistencies by citing one example that while the parents have been categorized as non-Bhutanese and therefore not eligible to return to Bhutan, whereas their children have been categorized as Bhutanese and eligible to return and reapply for citizenship.

Secondly, the letter expresses its fear and questions as to how the Bhutanese who have been denied return this time could appeal to the same authority which denied them their right to return to Bhutan? Pertinent question indeed. This means that the Ambassador is skeptical about the body reversing its own previous verdict which means that the Bhutanese will be allowed to appeal but the result will be a foregone conclusion.

Thirdly, Ambassador Malinowski has strongly hinted that the conclusions arrives at recently were not “transparent” as it should have been and hence he urges the countries concerned to “reexamine” the report’s conclusions and if possible “review” the entire decisions in the larger interest of the refugees and make the whole affair “transparent” so that the people within and without could believe in the outcome of the report that was full of inconsistencies.

Fourthly, the Ambassador suspects that the Bhutanese returning to Bhutan legally might not be treated in a fair manner and hence talks of the “absence of guarantees” to the refugees. This means that the Ambassador of the United States would like to get proper and genuine guarantees from the Bhutanese side that the refugees will be treated in a fair manner and that they will not be “terrorized” any more by the state security apparatus much the same way which made them to flee to Nepal some twelve years ago. The fact is that the Bhutanese side has yet to guarantee the safe and sound return of its own forcedly evacuated citizens.

Fifthly, the US has indirectly hinted the Royal government of Bhutan to allow the refugees to return to their own places from where they were forced to leave the country. The letter also expresses concern for the possible employment of the refugees upon return to Bhutan and suggests indirectly the Bhutan government to allow the refugees to reside in their original places so that they can resume their activities as usual. Here is presumably a humanistic approach of the United States government.

Sixthly, the Ambassador appears not convinced about the safe return of the refugees and their possible engagement in employment in their original place of residence and hence he says “with so many uncertainties facing the refugees’ future in Bhutan, I fear that many will be hesitant to return”. This means that a considerable chunk of the Bhutanese refugees even if allowed to return to Bhutan will not do so unless they conclude that the “uncertainties” as mentioned by the United States remain have already become just the other wise. Its corollary would be that the refugees will apparently wish to live in Nepali camps until they are told from their compatriots that Bhutan had already become a heaven and advised to return. Sounds bit hollow!

Seventhly, Ambassador Malinowski has rightly tried to elevate the ranks of the UNHCR. In effect, the total neglect of the UNHCR by the Nepali side appears to have jolted the United States. The fact is that who else knows better, about the management of the refugees from providing shelter to the refugees to the process of safe repatriation, than the UNHCR–—a world body which according to the Ambassador is “uniquely qualified to assist in the verification and repatriation of the refugees”. In saying so the Ambassador apparently laments the negligence exhibited by Nepal in particular and Bhutan in general in seeking the mediation efforts of the world recognized body. Its corollary would be that if the UNHCR were taken into confidence and asked to assist would have not brought the inconsistencies which have appeared in its absence.

The US Ambassador wishes to assist the refugees’ in collaboration with the UNHCR in their return and reintegration in Bhutan for it presumes that under the “current conditions of return, we believe, are unlikely to foster sustainable reintegration of the refugees back into the Bhutanese society”. In other words, the Ambassador suspects that the refugees if back in their country might not be pleasingly accepted by the authorities there.

These were some of the points which our analysts analyzed. The gist is that the United States is not happy with the outcome of the latest report that had so many inconsistencies. The US also wishes the UNHCR role in the entire affair that is related with the refugees and has also more or less “instructed” Nepal and Bhutan to bring in the good offices of the UNHCR. The letter also suggests Bhutan to prepare conducive atmosphere for the refugees who wish to return to their motherland.

To recall, at the fag end of the Clinton Administration, Assistant Secretary of State, Carl Inderfurth, talking to a select group of Nepali media men at the Shangrila Hotel had warned Bhutan that if they did not exhibited their desire to take back their own nationals residing in Nepali camps, the US will be forced to convince international consortium assisting Bhutan to suspend their pledges for a while until the Druk regime heeded to the US suggestions.

Since then the US side more or less appeared reluctant in pressing Bhutan to take back its refugees. However, the fresh US overtures speak that the US is not only watching the events here but is also not happy with the manner the refugees are being verified by the JVT. Should this mean that the US would henceforth keep eyeing the procedures and the methods of verification currently being applied for the process of verification and for the repatriation of the refugees? Does this mean that the US thinks that the conclusions of the JVT have come as a sheer injustice to the refugees?

The Ambassador’s letter has come also at a time when Indian foreign secretary was in town last week in connection with the SAARC standing committee meeting. How India, a very very close friend of Bhutan could have “gulped” the underlying message ( bitter pill) contained in the said letter which presumably must have come as a “bomb-shell” to the Bhutanese authorities who have time and again “befooled” their Nepali counterparts at time of bilateral negotiations. Should this also mean that the letter has favored the Nepali side?