Information Bhutan International :

Information Bhutan International

Bhutan Review.

With annual report 2002 Spring Edition 2003 Summer edition 2003
Autum edition 2003
Winter Edition 2003 NEW

Some clips from the latest issue of Bhutan Review:

THE CURRENT AFFAIRS

Secret Christmas.

Bhutanese Christians celebrated Christmas this year secretly in a Church-house in Thimphu. Since a few years the regime has persecuted Pastors and asked Christians to leave their faith, or country. Earlier this year World Wide List of Christen-dom ranged Bhutan as the 7^th worst offenders of Christian faith.

www.bhutan4christ.com

Verification Team ran away.

The Verification Team of Bhutan went back without completing the task bestowed by the 15^th Ministerial meeting. The team led by Dr. Sonam Tenzin and Mr. Susil Jung Rana briefed the verified refugees of Sector A of Khudunabari camp in a nearby bamboo hut in Dec.22. Dr. Sonam provoked outrage by telling that, those refugees categorised as Bhuta-nese who emigrated, will be held in a camp for two years as non-national if they go back to Bhutan. Some refugees offended, and the team ran away fearing lack of security provi-sions. Back in Bhutan, they accused the refugees of trying to burn them with the hut itself, a trick of the Drukpas to avoid repatriation.

The king is fighting.

His Majesty the King Jigme is in the battle zone, chasing Indian insurgent, compelled by New Delhi. During his Dynasty’s 96^th anniversary of kingship celebrated as National Day on 17th Dec. Prime Minister assured the public that he is safe. He either do not have confidence on the military, or out of mob mentality, he is fighting India’s war personally.

Bhutanese feared in India.

When the Bhutanese military refused the truce offered by the Indian insurgents last week, a sense of enmity grew among the Assamese ending up centuries of cordial friendship. The insurgents notified the Bhutanese to leave North India.

INTERNATIONAL GRANT IS AID IS AIDING TO INTENSIFY THE DISCREMINATION IN BHUTAN.

The Sustainable Development Agreement (SDA) between Bhutan and The Netherlands has always been lucrative, but to Bhutanese regime alone. Bhutan is contend of whether or not the Dutch scrap out from its list of grant aid beneficiary. Most of 13 countries out of 49 that are severed from Dutch grant aid decried not do so. In contrary, the oppressed Bhutanese minorities urged the Dutch to suspend its grant aid or assert basic human rights preconditions such as repatriation of the refugees. But the Dutch ministry for development cooperation neither considers such preconditions nor severed Bhutan from aid flow. This is evident from the fact that the commitment for 2004 and 2005 has already been made of 4 million and 3.4 million Euro respectively, quite before the parliamentarians debated over such provisions. Apart from the official government aid to Bhutan, the SDA provides for projects and activities which are prepared and executed through different NGOs of The Netherlands. This agreement has been renewed last year, irrespective of the human rights record of Bhutan and the way such grants are being used.

Bhutanese regime discriminates ethnic minorities based on their race. Forcible exile of more than 100,000 Lhotshampas and oppression against their kiths in the six southern districts is self evident. The grant aid of 4.5 and 3.8 million Euros given under SDA in the year 2001 and 2002 respectively has not benefited these districts. Thus the implication is that the present manner of aid disbursement strengthens the intensity of discrimination. Beside that there is lack of control mechanism. A spokesperson of the foreign affairs say they do not know if Bhutan government misappropriates the fund or do not distribute fairly. The Dutch government is squeezing its spending in all spheres of their national and inter-national priorities, but the same stand is not taken against Bhutan.

The Dutch Minster for Development Co-operation in her white paper ‘mutual interest mutual responsibilities’ asserted to maximize the efficiency by terminating their cooperation with the countries receiving smaller aid packages. As a result Bhutan fell in that category. However the Director Mr. Robert Milders revealed that the termination of grant aid to Bhutan does not mean that the SDA will be denounced or suspended. If this agreement seek to conserve Bhutan’s bio-diversity alone, then is also imprudent because Bhutan already has undisturbed bio-diversity with 72% of its land covered with forest.

The essence of development cooperation is to combat poverty in a sustainable manner. “If the grant aid recipient country (Bhutan) does not have in its constitution to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and preventable diseases, there is no use giving Dutch tax payer’s money” said, former minister Evelen Herfkens in an interview given to me earlier. If the Dutch government has in its policy that recipient government must have, in practical, the plan to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and respect human rights, then it is self incriminating to give money to the government of Bhutan that does not have such a plan practically. No amount of their grant benefited the six southern districts where the government closed down schools, hospitals and water supply schemes in 1990, and those reopened facilities are given only to the resettled elite and state military. Whose benefit the grant stands for? Is it not democratic to disburse the grants from bottom up? By Gautam

Verified,Categorised and beleaguered!

The figure shown here oner are the Bhutanese refugees from Khudunabari camp in Nepal forcibly exiled by Bhutan in early 1990. They were verified by Nepal-Bhutan Team after ten years of waiting and categorized as shown. Even the children are also categorized as criminals-category 4. According to 15^th meeting with Nepal, Bhutanese regime has to repatriate some of them. But the team provoked rage by telling them that they will have to stay as foreigners, isolated in camps without any rights if they go to back to Bhutan. The team left and accused the refugees of setting them on ‘fire’, trying to avoid their repatriation.

Refugees are verified and categorized by Nepal Bhutan team as:

Number of Family

Population

%

Category 1

(Bhutanese if forcefully evicted)

74

293

2.40

Category 2

(Voluntarily emigrated)

2182

8595

70.55

Category 3

(Non-Bhutanese)

817

2948

24.22

Category 4

(Bhutanese with criminal Acts)

85

347

2.85

Total verified refugees

3155

12153

Reappealed by: (Category 2 to 4)

2965

-

-

Not re-appealed (Category 2 to 4)

119

-

Bhutanese government has created a row with the refugees by asserting inhuman conditions for repatriation. The JVT members conveyed such condtions on 22 December and left with any further steps. Below is the detail report on the row:

23.12.2003

Joint Verification Team(JVT) briefings and untoward incident

At around 11.15 A.M yesterday ie 22nd December 2003, both the verification teams of Bhutan and Nepal led by Dr Sonam Tenzin and Mr. Sushil Jung Rana arrived at Khudunabari refugee camp to brief the refugees about the conditions and guidelines on repatriation. According to the scheduled plan the briefing was to carry on sector-wise first day starting with sector-A and continuously for 7 days. It is felt that the plan was not properly organized and well communicated to the camp supervisor and camp committee for the arrangement as not only people from sector-A was there but thousands of refugees had already gathered. Once the teams arrived, people of sector-A were asked to enter the community hall which has no enough space to accommodate even the sector-A people. Most of the people from sector-A have to either sit or stand outside on the ground to listen the briefings with other crowds.

The first briefing started by Mr. Sushil Jung Rana, the Nepali team leader informed the people that the agreement of two governments reached after 15th round of bilateral talks to a very important and crucial stage of repatriation. According to the agreement the category-1(Bonafide Bhutanese, if they have been evicted forcefully), category-2(Bhutanese who emigrated) and category-4(Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts) people will be repatriated to Bhutan. According to the Nepal government there is no any distinction of categories and all people are looked one and the same and should be repatriated with dignity. After that he requested the Bhutanese team leader Dr Sonam Tenzin to brief.

Dr. Sonam Tenzin started his briefing with categories of people falling in C1, C2 and C4.

Firstly he started with C1(Bonafide Bhutanese, if they have been evicted forcefully):- He said the C1 people will be repatriated in the first phase and as soon as they arrive in Bhutan they will be given citizenship and have the full rights to enjoy like any Bhutanese living in Bhutan but on the question of land he clearly stated that those who have sold off their land either to private or government will not get any land. One who has not sold and left will be given substitute land in equal measurement in his thram record (land registration). After that he asked C1 people if any in the sector-A to raise questions. One of the C1 people started asking questions which later on denied to listen to him or answering as reasoning that if one goes on asking question it will be never ending and others will not get chance. He asked him to stop, then immediately he proceeded to C2.

For, C2(Bhutanese who emigrated) people he told that those who willing to return to Bhutan will be allowed but the conditions are that once arrived in Bhutan will be registered as re-applicants and a card will be issued to them. They have to remain on probation at least for 2 years and re-apply for citizenship. While applying for citizenship, all the family members those who are with him/her have to be physically present in Bhutan and cannot apply for other members who are still in the camp or elsewhere. Further to get the citizenship, one has to though reading and writing Dzongkha is exempted but has to speak and know the Bhutanese history, culture and traditions. In the meantime if anyone is found speaking against the King, country and the people or left Bhutan will not be given citizenship. He also told that the C2 people will be taken to Bhutan and kept in the camps and one member from the family will be employed as a laborer in the road site and will be provided facilities as that of expatriated laborer in health and education. No body will get any rights of citizenship and will also have no freedom of movement.

The statement clearly means that only one member has to work and support the other members and rest have to stay in the camp depending on the earning of one member only which definitely means slowly starve to death as earning of one member is not sufficient to meet the basic needs of all and it is clear that the government is not going to supplement any things. After the re-application for citizenship which is very ambiguous that we have never applied before for citizenship as we were naturally or by birth citizens. So question of re-application should not be there. He told that a committee will be formed to interview the re-applicants and if they are satisfied then only be granted citizenship. The deliberation was very provocative and intentionally Bhutan government discouraging the people from returning bringing unacceptable conditions.

C3( Non-Bhutanese people): About the C3, the Bhutanese team leader clearly said that his team has already submitted their review of re-appeal report to the government and got back the reply that there is no any changes from the previous result on the side of Bhutan government. He also said that he is not the one to make the decision and is here only to convey the message of government and is not going to say anything more or less than the government's instruction to him.

C4(Bhutanese who have committed criminal acts): About the C4, he said that the Nepal police will handover the people falling in this category to Bhutan government and will be taken to Bhutan and dealt according to the Bhutanese's law. Their family will also be taken but will be kept in a separate camp which means distinctly stigmatizing as a family of so called "anti-national" from the other community. After hearing all these there was confusion and noise and protest from outside the hall and inside. This occurred at about 1.30 PM.

In the meantime the Nepali team leader requested the people to be quiet and started briefing on the His Majesty Government-Nepal's(HMG-Nepal) position.

He said the Nepal government will treat all the Bhutanese like as any other foreigners. He also cautioned that if any one quietly leaves the camp and go out to live in Nepal, action will be taken if found later on. He also clarified that HMG Nepal is not responsible for any statement made by the Bhutanese team other than in the bilateral agreement. He also clarified that the Nepal government is not responsible for the conditions on repatriation briefed by Bhutanese team leader as it is not the agreement and is in their knowledge. He also clarified that there will be free transportation of people and belongings and will be escorted up to Bhutan border.

By this time the people became bit aggressive and surrounded both the team members from inside the hall and outside and verbally started charging them. There was no further discussion or deliberation. We tried to pacify the crowd but was unmanageable. In the meantime, security force of unified command of Nepal led by one Sub-Inspector arrived in the camp with arms and wanted to enter inside the community hall compound which was prevented by the UNHCR Security Officer and requested them to enter without arms which was not possible for them to leave their arms. They remained outside and only the Sub-Inspector went in and first met the Deputy Director, Refugee Coordination Unit. Deputy Director told the Sub-Inspector to safely whisk away the Bhutanese team members. The Sub-Inspector without clearing the crowd went in the hall and brought out the Bhutanese team members. So once the team members were out the angry crowd started assaulting the members first verbally and later physically till they enter their vehicle and drove away. It is learnt that one of the Bhutanese team members was hit by stone on the head and have to stitch the wound and another members' cloth (gho- Bhutanese dress) was torn. The extent of injuries to others is not known although no single member was spared. There were some damages to Bhutanese vehicles and Nepalese vehicle too like window shield and wind screen were damaged as mob charged them while trying to drive away.

According to the information, the Bhutanese team members have left for Bhutan early this morning.

An appeal submitted to the Dutch Parliament on 10th December 2003 by the Bhutanese Human Righs Activist in Europe.

Honourable Chairman

Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Postbus 20018
2500 EA Den Haag

Subject:                                             APPEAL

Your Excellency,

Appreciating the government of Netherlands and Bhutan’s friendly relationship, and their partnership for sustainable development, we the undersigned, representing the Lhotshampa minority (including more than 20% of Bhutan’s population who are forcibly exiled by the Bhutanese regime) appeal you with this memorandum to beseech on to our plight please.

The Royal Government of Bhutan’s respect to the inherited rights and freedoms of the Minority Lhosthampa people has been deteriorating over the last thirteen years. The strategy is to alien its minority citizens from their basic human rights and systematically eliminate them out of the country. Bhutan’s dubious motives to render these Lhosthampa people stateless through systematic ethnic cleansing, has been apparent from its strategies that:

        I.      Revised Citizenship law of 1958 to the Citizenship Act 1985 including vague measures to deliberately revoke the citizenship of those who were naturalised as Bhutanese under 1958 Citizenship law. Thus the Lhotshampa’s citizenship status was down graded to 7 categories and then exiled one after another. Hindu minorities, matured to receive the citizenship by birth are denied of citizenship since 1985. Later, the government down-graded the citizenship status up to seven categories.

     II.      Declared the supporters of democratic movement and their relatives as “Ngolop” or the ‘anti-national traitors’ and forced them out of the country. Those resisting against such a strategy are still in prison.

   III.      Formulated the so-called ‘voluntary migration forms’ under which the Lhotshampas were forced to sign under duress and leave Bhutan immediately.

IV.      Halted every development programmes in the six southern districts, closed down schools, hospitals, communication etc. and deployed the Royal Bhutan Army in the villages. Organised rapes, arbitrary detention, plunder and intimidation followed to hound out the innocent people. The development activities in the South have not been reopened fully. A few schools and health centres restarted are used exclusively for the children of military and the resettled Northerners only.

    V.      Introduced greenbelt policy, Ngalong’s etiquette-Driglamnamza, Survey system, route permit, Police Clearance/no objection certificate, language policy etc. that facilitated mass discrimination.

With these strategies and the policy of One Nation One People, Bhutan has forcibly exiled about 20% of its citizens since 1990, as a formal measure to dissolve any element opposing to the absolute monarchy. As a result, more than 100,000 Lhotshampa refugees have been stranded in the UNHCR administered refugee camps in Nepal over the last 12 years. About 30,000 refugees are living outside the camps in India and Nepal. Bhutanese government has delayed and denied every practical measure for repatriation initiated through bilateral talks with Nepal. This has disturbed the peace in South Asia.

In the light of these facts, one can realize that the ruling elite have been pursuing ethnic cleansing measures to eliminate the Hindu minorities from the Buddhist kingdom. Since the Lhotshampas were forced to leave their country not because of a civil war, foreign intervention or natural calamity, which entitle them to a voluntary return upon restoration of previous situation, the refugee crisis will not be solved unless the donor country, especially The Netherlands asserts human rights pre-conditions with its grant aid. This is now inevitable given the fact that, instead of recognizing the refugee’s right to return to their homeland, Nepal agreed to Bhutan’s following motives of delay, in order to dissolve these refugees in the slums of Nepal and India, through an unacceptable process, which held them in dismay more than a decade. Categorizing these refugees in to two: Bhutanese and Non-Bhutanese would have been desirable but Nepal and Bhutan decided against the interest of these refugees to divide them in to following four categories:

1.            Bhutanese who migrated voluntarily. The trick used thereby is to brand as non-Bhutanese since under the Bhutanese law do not stipulate the circumstance for emigration but forfeits the citizenship, much in contrary to international law which otherwise must insure the nationality of another country before emigration is approved. Beside that the vast majority of the refugees were forced to sign 'Voluntary Migrations Forms' under duress before leaving the country. The government has retained these forms.

2.            Non-Bhutanese. The government of Bhutan claims that the majority of people in the camps did not come from Bhutan but are local Nepalis or Indians, in order to deny their repatriation.

3.            Bhutanese who have done criminal acts. Government aggregates all those Bhutanese who have participated in political and human rights activities as criminals.

4.            Bona fide Bhutanese, who can prove the evidence that they are forcibly evicted. While Bhutan has conscripted all the documents what so ever before they were evicted, and its hard to prove with tangible evidence.

These conditions for categorization clearly expose Bhutan’s concoction to render these refugees stateless. The 15^th round of talks held recently with Nepal also failed. Holding bilateral talks appeared as the tactics of Bhutan only to continue luring more grant aid. The bilateral talk that ended on 22^nd Oct2003 in Thimphu, the capital city of Bhutan, has resolved to take back all the refugees except those that falls under category III. The norms and conditions for repatriation is vague and is against the interest of the refugees . Bhutan declines to respect the citizenship rights of the refugees prior to repatriation. It also disagrees the involvement of international agencies like UNHCR to monitor the repatriation and rehabilitation process. This clearly reveals the insincerity on the part of the Royal Government of Bhutan in resolving the crisis.

The reports from Southern districts say that the data collected during the verification process in a refugee camp in Nepal has been used to further harass the concerned relatives of the refugees who are still living in Bhutan. Lhotshampas are treated as slaves, legally discriminated and held in constant suppression and persecution. Royal Bhutan Army still occupies school buildings and development infrastructures that has been closed down in the six Southern districts since 1990. The Lhotshampa children are denied admission to few schools that are reopened. Recently the government passed a law that prohibited Lhotshampa children who were accommodated by their relatives to go to school in other parts of the country. People are suffering from untold man made calamities. The fear of unfounded persecution and the restrictions against the right to freedom of opinion and expression forbids anybody to speak out and let anyone know their plights.

Beside that the government has been resettling the Northern Drukpa in the lands of the Lhotshampa refugees, ignoring the recommendations of the Habitat International to stop violating its obligation as State of Origin. The motive behind could be to ignite ethnic clash in case in future the government is compelled to accept the refugees back. This will lead to exodus once again, accomplishing its strategy to reduce the population of the minorities.

The very nature of the so called drafting a written constitution at the behest of the king, is self evident to constitutionally deprive the Lhotshampa minority’s rights and freedoms as its drafting committee did not include even a single representation from the Lhotshampa communities. This is another ploy of the king to fortify his position and avoid external criticism. This will not promulgate the genuine democratic change.

In this way the present monarchical regime of Bhutan has been gravely violating almost all the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Rights of the Child and the international conventions.

Bhutan has undisturbed bio-diversity and clean environment. The support given by The Netherlands through Sustainable Development Agreement and any other channels is being misappropriated, as it is mostly used for the state military and to develop only the western region, predominated by the Ngalongs- the elites. It is ironical to point out that not a single Lhotsampa has been benefited by the support provided by the Dutch government.

.

In the light of the above, and for the justice to give a chance, we all, on behalf of the Lhotshampa minorities and indigenous people of Bhutan humbly appeal you, to request your government to consider to:

1.            evaluate the Dutch grant assistance to Bhutan in the light of human rights record and suspend all the grant aid until Bhutan promulgates a fair and democratic written constitution.

2.            assert human rights pre-conditions with the economic help, pressing to respect and observe the rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child, Women and, Minorities’ Rights, and control that the aid is distributed for the general welfare of the people irrespective of their race, religion, region and ethnic background etc.

3.            Facilitate to form an unbiased body in line with the parameters of the international norms and standards to monitor the human rights situation in the country, and over verification, categorization, and repatriation and rehabilitation process of the Bhutanese refugees. Accordingly expedite the repatriation of the Lhotshampa refugees and settle them in their original place with honour and dignity.

4.            urge Bhutan review its laws to ensure that they are consistent with the fundamental principles of international law and UN conventions, particularly to withdraw the Revised Citizenship Act 1985 and refrain from racial discriminatory practices.

5.            ask Bhutan to constitute a well represented constituent assembly, by firstly allowing the political parties and human rights organisations to function from within the country to render a healthy and balanced debate over each clauses of the draft constitution in order to build truly democratic constitution.

6.            urge Bhutanese regime to withdraw its military forces that are stationed in the Southern villages, provide education to all the Lhotshampa children and restore the health, communication and agricultural input facilities that are closed since 1990 in the six southern districts and ensure the international aid is not used for the military purpose.

Your Excellency, it is an honest request of the people of Bhutan to kindly request your government to use its diplomatic influence to steer and encourage Bhutan to recognize and respect the above stated recommendations in order to render justice for all the Bhutanese people please.

Signed in good faith:

Date:               10 December 2003

Place:             Parliament House, The Hague.



For and on behalf of the Democracy Aspiring Bhutanese Citizens

FACILITATED BY: GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENCE (GHRD).



Email: ibistichting@hotmail.com

Source: AI Index: ASA 31/060/2003 (Public)
News Service No: 247
28 October 2003

Nepal/Bhutan: Bilateral Talks Fail to Solve Refugee Crisis -- International Community Should Take Concerted Action
(New York/London, October 28, 2003) -- The latest round of talks between the governments of Bhutan and Nepal to resolve the Bhutanese refugee crisis has failed to provide a solution, a coalition of five leading non-governmental organizations (NGOs) said today. Donor countries should convene an international conference to devise a solution to the longstanding crisis.

The two governments heralded the bilateral talks, held last week in the Bhutanese capital, Thimpu, as a "historic breakthrough".

"These talks between Nepal and Bhutan were neither historic nor a breakthrough," said Rachael Reilly, refugee policy advisor at Human Rights Watch. "The bilateral talks have ignored the concerns of the international community and failed to provide a solution for the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. Donor countries must insist on the full involvement of the international community in solving the refugee crisis."

The coalition of NGOs - Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Lutheran World Federation, Habitat International Coalition and the Bhutanese Refugee Support Group - called on donors to urgently convene an international conference involving the two governments, refugee representatives, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and other relevant U.N. agencies to devise a comprehensive and just solution to the 12-year-long refugee crisis.

More than 100,000 Bhutanese refugees - an estimated one-sixth of the population of Bhutan - have been living in camps in south-eastern Nepal since the early 1990s when they were arbitrarily stripped of their nationality and forcibly expelled from Bhutan in one of the largest ethnic expulsions in modern history.

After years of stalemate, the governments of Bhutan and Nepal in March 2001 agreed to conduct a pilot screening of the refugees in Khudunabari camp, which houses 12,000 refugees, to determine their identities and eligibility to return to Bhutan. The refugees were divided into four categories:

Category I - bona fide Bhutanese citizens (just 2.5% of the refugees);
Category II - refugees who supposedly "voluntarily" migrated from Bhutan (70% of the refugees);
Category III - non-Bhutanese (24% of the refugees);
Category IV - refugees who have committed "criminal" acts, including those who participated in so-called "anti-national" pro-democracy activities in Bhutan (3% of the refugees).

In August, a group of NGO representatives visited Khudunabari camp as part of a joint international mission to Nepal and India. The mission expressed grave concern about flaws in the screening process as it excludes UNHCR, fails to comply with international human rights and refugee standards, and risks leaving tens of thousands of refugees stateless.

The mission also identified the refugees' key concerns regarding repatriation to Bhutan. These include guarantees of safety and security, full citizenship rights, and return to original homes and properties for refugees returning to Bhutan. None of these conditions was addressed by the latest round of talks, said the NGOs.

The NGOs had hoped that the 15th round of bilateral talks would answer some of the serious concerns about the ongoing screening of the Bhutanese refugees and plans for their repatriation.

Instead, the NGOs pointed out the following shortcomings in the outcome of the talks:

Both governments have rejected the strong appeals of the international community to involve an independent third party, preferably UNHCR, in the screening and repatriation process;
The Bhutanese government repeated its position (announced at the 14th round of talks in May) that it would allow refugees in Categories I, II and IV to return. However, the talks failed to clarify the conditions under which the refugees would be readmitted;
The Bhutanese government affirmed that refugees in Category II would have to reapply for citizenship in Bhutan after a probationary period of at least two years, even though the majority of them were forced to sign so-called "voluntary migration forms" when leaving Bhutan. The stringent and discriminatory nature of Bhutan's citizenship laws, including the requirement that all applicants are fluent in the language of northern Bhutan, Dzonkha, could exclude many southern Bhutanese from reacquiring citizenship;
The Nepalese government repeated their offer of citizenship for refugees in Category II, the supposedly "voluntary" migrants, who choose not to return to Bhutan. But the growing insecurity and instability in Nepal raise questions about the viability of this offer;
Refugees in Category IV, including those who participated in peaceful pro-democracy activities, would have to stand trial in Bhutan if they returned, despite the absence of any guarantees of fair trials or due process in Bhutan;
The talks gave no guarantees that refugees would be able to return to their original homes and properties or enjoy basic human rights protections and full access to social services, including education, all of which are critical conditions for sustainable return;
The governments agreed that the screening would proceed in a second camp - Sanischare - without any assurances that the serious anomalies and inadequacies in the process would be addressed. The decision to continue the screening process camp-by-camp in the other 6 camps will further delay the process. It took over two years just to complete the screening in Khudunabari camp;
The governments set a deadline of January 2004 for reviewing the appeals of refugees in Category III but failed to address the serious concerns of the international community regarding the flaws in the appeal process. These include: the absence of an independent third party to hear the appeals, the lack of transparency regarding the criteria for screening, and the extremely short timeframe for appeals.

"The two governments look set to repeat all the mistakes of the initial screening in Khudunabari camp," said Peter Prove, Assistant to the General Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation. "None of the fears of the refugees have been properly addressed, and the process could drag on for years, prolonging the suffering of the refugees."

In a move criticized by the NGOs, UNHCR announced earlier this month that it would begin phasing out assistance to the refugee camps in the absence of a just and lasting solution by Nepal and Bhutan.

The NGOs called on donors to apply new pressure to Nepal and Bhutan and insist the two governments uphold the refugees' rights and allow UNHCR to monitor the repatriation process.

"For too long donor governments have offered tacit support to the bilateral process between Nepal and Bhutan," said Eve Lester, refugee coordinator at Amnesty International. "Now they must recognize that this strategy has failed and international efforts are needed to find a comprehensive solution for the refugees."

For further information, please contact:
In London, Magda Wendorff-Kowalczuk, Amnesty International: +44 20 7413 5729/ + 44 7778 472 173 (mobile)
In Geneva, Peter Prove, Lutheran World Federation:
+ 41 22 791 6364/ 41 78 757 6749 (mobile)
In New York, Rory Mungoven, Human Rights Watch: + 1 917 497 9704
In New Delhi, Malavika Vartak, Habitat International Coalition: + 91 11 2435 8492 (office)/ + 91 11 3590 0378 (mobile)

Stichting Information Bhutan International, Gautam: Phopne: 0031 (0)640475108.

The Stichting Information Bhutan International publishes a human rights news bulletin, BHUTAN REVIEW quarterly from the Hague. The readers and well-wishers of the Bhutanese people may contact this foundation for free issue of this publication. You are requested to kindly donate some amount you would like to, in order to cover the printing and postage cost. Please deposit from your nearest Post Office, send cheque or ask for an Accept Giro.

The ACCOUNT NUMBER IS 9232778

Thanking you with respect. Please contact us

For electronic copy of BHUTAN REVIEW download here under:

BHUTAN REVIEW

(A human rights news brief of the Stichting Information Bhutan International).

Volume: 2,7. Quarterly, 30 September 2003.

With annual report 2002 Spring Edition 2003 Summer edition 2003
Autum edition 2003
Winter Edition 2003 NEW

THE CURRENT AFFAIRS.

Rounds and rounds again.

The twice delayed talks between Bhutan and Nepal on the Bhutanese refugee crisis will resume their 15^th round on 20^th October in Thimphu. This was decided during an informal talk between the delegations to the 58^th session of the UN general assembly in New York. Earlier Bhutanese regime postponed the talks indefinitely citing its cabinet re-shufflement. The 14^th round of talks held last May 19-22 blatantly violated the refugee’s right to repatriation by making the verification report inconsistent and abusive. International communities have urged both the countries to re-verify the report.

Bhutan government destroying Lhotshampa designed houses.

The Bhutanese government began destroying the Lho-tshampa styled houses and forced people to build with the classical Tibetan architecture. It has such a plan since the department of Works & Housing in 1980 was created under which, models were designed. This is in pursuit to eradicate anything of Hindu tradition and culture.

Nepal held refugees in chaos.

Insecurity and chaos surpassed in the Bhutanese refugee camps in Nepal when the government of Nepal withdrew the security arrangements after a deputy police inspector was shot dead by the suspected Maoist in the Khudunabari camp last week. In another camp in Beldangi, one refugee was found dead in a nearby forest. The government has not justified the withdrawal of the security provisions nor has satisfactory investigations done against such death cases

Ten prime ministers taking oath (Kuensel) to serve the king, alone.

The government of Bhutan was taken over in turn wise, five times over the last five years with five different prime ministers. There was no improvement in the human rights situation. Five more heads are added recently (see Kuensel of July 2003). The government remains same, the undemocratic, under the same absolute monarchy. Each of them took oath of allegiance to serve the king, not the people; and expressed to support the king as their main challenge. Thus they are debauched, holding power, not devolved by the king but shared among the elites, and do not respect the rights and freedoms of the people.

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF BHUTAN DENOTES FUTURE ETHNIC CLEANSING.