DATE 19 March 1996 REGARDING Bhutanese demonstrations-update 19 March 1996 The following is a review and update of the situation. It includes status of each group of peace marchers, country informatio from India, Nepal, and Bhutan, including statements from the Bhutanese king. Finally, a draft resolution by a human rights group is included, as well as a sample letter that could be used in lobbying governments. 1. MARCHERS 1.1 1st WAVE OF MARCHERS The original 150 peace marchers who left Damak on the 14th of January and were subsequently arrested on the 17th of Jan, were released on the 27th of Feb from Jalpaiguri and Siliguri Special Jails. The imposition of Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 144, under which they had been held, was declared unlawful. After spending a night in a school in the Pradhan Nagar suberb of Siliguri, they then established a camp on the banks of the Pancha Nadi River, again in Siliguri. 1.2 2nd WAVE OF MARCHERS The 2nd group of 273 peace marchers who had forced entry into India and subsequent arrest on the 14th of February, were released from Siliguri Special Jail on the 28th of Feb. Again the imposition of IPC 144 under which they were being held, was declared unlawful. From the jail, they went to the camp on the banks of the Pancha Nadi River in Siliguri, where they joined the original group (see 1.1 above). 1.3 PANCHA NADI CAMP After the prolonged period spent in jail by both the groups, the marchers established a camp to rest, rebuild their strength and prepare to continue their march to Thimpu to petition the King of Bhutan. Some returned to the refugee camps in Nepal, due to illnesses acquired while in jail. Of the 423 (150+273) released from jail, the number of marchers preparing to resume the march was c400. 1.4 3rd WAVE OF MARCHERS The 344 peace marchers who forced entry into India and subsequently were arrested on the 26th of February are currently being held in the West Bengal Central Jail, Bahrampur, where they have been taken during our absence. This is c400 km from Siliguri. They have been arrested and continue to be held under IPC 144, despite the release of the two previous groups more than two weeks ago. In contrast with the experience at Jalpaiguri and Siliguri Special Jails, access to these detainees is available by monitoring groups. Mr Gobin Adhikari, of Beldangi 2 Refugee camp, visited West Bengal Central jail between the 3rd and 12th of March, and reported there were approx 20 who had fallen ill with a range of complaints including fever, diarrhoea, blood dysentry and backache. One of the female prisoners has been hospitalised outside the jail and food is reported to be insufficient. The court hearing of the 344 peace marchers was scheduled to take place at the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court on the 11th of March. This was adjourned until the 18th of the same since there were insufficient escorts to accompany the marchers from Bahrampur jail to Siliguri court. This was reported in the Rising Nepal (RN) 13-3-96. 1.5 4th WAVE OF MARCHERS On the 12th of March, 183 Bhutanese refugess were arrested at the Mechi Bridge on the Indo-Nepal border. Despite the two court rulings two weeks previously, declaring the imposition of IPC144 to be unlawful, the bridge had remained barricaded by the Indian police. When the marchers approached the border, they were stopped by the Executive Magistrate, Mr A. Bhattacharya. Mr Bhattacharya informed that although IPC144 was not in force, the marchers would be arrested under IPC Section 151, since it was judged that the peace marchers' movement would disturb the peace in the area. The marchers were taken to Siliguri court, although they were not charged, and are currently being held in Siliguri Special Jail under IPC151. Reported by RN and KTM Post 13-3-96. The current understanding of IPC Section 151 is that one may only be held for 24 hrs without formal charges being brought. That said, three days had passed yesterday after which they were still being held. No charges had been brought or dates for a hearing set. 1.6 PANCHA NADI CAMP - MARCH RESUMED On the 15th of March, a group of 150 peace marchers who had been resting and recuperating at camp on the banks of the Pancha Nadi river in Siliguri since their release from jail over 2 weeks previously, left the camp to resume their Appeal March to Thimpu to petition the Bhutanese King. (ref 1.3 above) Led by Hari Adhikari Bangalay and Kamala Chhetri (both of the 1st group of marchers), the new group of 150 was drawn primarily from the 2nd group of 273 (ref 1.2 above). It is anticipated that these will have been arrested under IPC151 although news of this has not been received yet. 1.7 AMCC MEETS PRIME MINISTER OF NEPAL The Rising Nepal (6-3-96), the government newspaper, reports that an AMCC delegation, including Ratan Gazmere, met with Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. The PM was briefed on the programme of the AMCC and the current situation in relation to the Appeal March to Bhutan. 1.8 FEAR OF VIOLENCE IN BHUTAN On the 29th of Feb, immediately following the release of the 2nd wave of marchers (ref 1.2 above), CVICT, an NGO working with victims of torture, expressed their concern regarding violence in Bhutan, should the marchers attempt to return. KTM Post 1-3-96. Independent reports from people who have recently returned from Bhutan speak of Bhutanese people being armed with bamboo poles. Behind are the police and behind them are the army who are armed. We too share the concern that a blood bath awaits if the refugees should enter Bhutan and strongly urge the participation of independant Human Rights groups to monitor the march. 2. POLITICAL SITUATION IN THE INDIAN SUB-CONTINENT 2.1 NEPAL The Foreign Minister has on several occassions over the last two weeks made the Nepali position supporting the refugees' right perfectly clear. In an interview with the KTM Post on the 8th of March, Dr Lohani, the foreign minister said, "Our position on the refugee issue is very clear. All the refugees living in the camps in Nepal must be allowed to return to Bhutan with dignity." On the involvement of India in trilateral talks, Dr Lohani said "..in a forceful way, we did ask for Indian assistance in this matter because we think the refugee issue is not a bilateral issue between Nepal and Bhutan but a trilateral issue.....But the Indian side's position has been that Nepal and Bhutan are friendly countries of India, so it does not want to be involved." At a talk programme organised by Amnesty International on "Refugees and Human Rights" on the 12th of March, Dr Lohani again spoke on the refugee issue. The RN 13-6-96 reports Dr Lohani "asserted that all the refugees in the camps situated in eastern Nepal are Bhutanese." He went further to say that the Nepal government requested that the Bhutan government to diffuse the controversies if any, through a process of verification. This was the stumbling point of the 6th round of ministerial talks last year. Returning to the issue of Indian involvement, he said "We feel that India must show official or unofficial participation to resolve the issue as the problem has assumed a trilateral form." Meanwhile, here in Nepal the political situation looks increasingly uncertain. The coalition government has been challenged by the opposition CPN(UML) party. The UML government was successfully challenged last year and collapsed by a vote of no confidence. Now in what appears to be a tit for tat move, the UML have requested that the King of Nepal convene a special parliamentary session to debate a vote of no confidence against the current coallition. This political uncertainty can only serve to weaken the Nepali position in the forthcoming bilateral talks and distract attention from any other diplomatic efforts. 2.2 BHUTAN The KTM Post 8-3-96, reports that King Syngye Wangchuk of Bhutan gave an interview with the Indian Express on the 7th March '96. In this, the king declared that "99% of the refugees currently camped in eastern Nepal are not Bhutanese nationals." The King of Bhutan was on a four day official tour to India between the 4th and 7th of March. In addition to three rounds of talks with the Indian Prime Minister Rao, he also met with the Chief of Army Staff, the Director-General of the Border Security Force and the Cabinet Secretary. Given the specific usage of the word anti-national in Bhutan, this has raised some interesting questions, like "How can I be an anti-national if I am a non-national?" In the same article of the KTM Post, the Bhutanese King "praised India for it's stand in preventing a deterioration of relations between Nepal and Bhutan over the issue of the Lhotsampas, the southern Bhutanese." Earlier, he had said "if those 'Nepalese' had crossed into Bhutan we would have definitely broken off talks with Nepal." In the KTM Post 12-3-96, there are reports of discussions having taken place for an extradition agreement between Bhutan and India. The agreement "is designed to victimise peace marchers arrested in India while crossing the Mechi bridge," the Independant reports (March 13-19). This raises some imponderables: 1. Bhutan says the refugees are not Bhutanese and then requests that they be sent back to them. 2. Talks are to be held on the repatriation of the refugees when one of the two parties maintains that 99% are not refugees. The talks have reached an impasse before they have begun. 3. The future of the talks on Human Rights and repatriation seem to depend on the refugees forgoing their human rights ie the right to peaceful demonstration.. The KTM Post 11-3-96 reports on a press release made by the Bhutan Peoples Party (BPP), one of the members of the Bhutanese Coalition for Democratic Movement (BCDM). In this, the BPP condemns the statement made by King Jigme on the 7th and regrets India's non-participation and insistance upon the bilateral talks. RN 13-3-96 reports on a press statement by the Peoples Forum for Human Rights, Bhutan (PFHRB), another member of BCDM. In this they say that King Jigme's remarks make it clear that "the Bhutanese government is not enthusiastic about solving the refugee problem." Refering to the extradition treaty under negotiations between India and Bhutan, the press statement says that the main objective of the treaty is to "declare Bhutanese living in exile to be criminals and to hand them over to the Bhutanese government to supress the democratic movement." Further it says that "all people opposing the Bhutanese government are declared traitors and criminals under Bhutanese law." Here they refer to the Bhutanese security act Tsa Wa Sum. The National Assembly of Bhutan confirmed and approved death punishment for offences against Tsa Wa Sum during it's 69th session held between March 19-26 1990. 2.3 INDIA This week India finished it's final session of parliament. Now the politicians have returned to the country to fight the elections to be held in May/June. 2.4 INDO-BHUTAN RELATIONS During the King's recent visit to India an extradition agreement between India and Bhutan was discussed and meetings with various security services held (ref 2.2 above). India has constantly maintained it's neutrality verbally but continues to belie this with almost every action it takes. The sustained arrests of the peace marchers, insistence of it being a bilateral issue and apparent willingness to grant the Bhutanese wishes combined with a political closeness at a time when the Bhutanese King is making such strong statements against the refugees portrays a political support of the Bhutanese position. 2.5 INDO-NEPAL RELATIONS India and Nepal appear to have reached stand off positions regarding the refugees. During the recent visit to India by the Nepali Prime Minister, diplomatic relations seemed to be very good and a number of significant trade agreements were made. Not least for the Nepalese was a large hydroplant. This is surely good for Nepal, but at what cost? Nepal has time and again stated it's belief that the issue is a trilateral one, involving India, and that the refugees, all of whom are Bhutanese, should be allowed to return to Bhutan unimpeded. India in all of this repeats it's unwillingness to become involved, reaffirms the bilateral nature of the talks and otherwise keeps silent on the issue. This is all good political talk but what deals have been done in the background. In an editorial of the KTM Post on the 2nd March, the question is raised as to what is "The other side of the water treaty?" 2.6 NEPAL - BHUTAN RELATIONS Nepal and Bhutan remain "friendly nations." Other than this, there is little sign of interaction. On the refugee situation, the position of the two countries has been stated above and they are mutually exclusive. Dr Lohani told the Independant 6 - 12 March when asked if there is any hope of resolving the issue, "We shall continue our efforts but our fundamental objectives unfortunately, are different. We want the refugees back to where they came from, whereas Bhutan wants them where they currently are." The English Nepali newspapers almost daily carry articles which restate the futility of the next round of talks. The seventh round of talks were due to have started on 11th March to 14th, but these had to be posponed because of King Jigme's visit to India, which would have allowed the Druk negotiators hardly any time to prepare. They are now set to take place between 4th & 8th April. 3. HUMAN RIGHTS MEETINGS. 3.1 PEOPLES PLAN FOR 21ST CENTUARY The forum "People's Plan for the 21st Century" (PP21)consisting of c300 representatives from more than 40 in the Asia/Pacific region met in KTM. During this time the Bhutanese refugee situation was widely discussed. As a result, an appeal was sent to the secretary general on the United Nations, Dr Bhutros Bhutros Ghali, urging him "to take up personally the repatriation of the Bhutanese Refugees with dignity and honour." In the letter, they have appealed for the establishment of human rights and a democratic set up in Bhutan and the guarantee of protection for Bhutanese refugees living in India especially in view of the proposed extradition agreement between Bhutan and India. They also point out that the Bhutanese security act Tsa Wa Sum violates the fundamental human rights of Bhutanese citizens, as a result of which thousands of them had to leave their country and anyone going against the king or the government is regarded as a traitor or an anti-national. This letter signed by 68 people representing NGOs from Nepal, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Philipines, Thailand, Hong Kong, Belgium, Sri Lanka USA, Kenya, S.Africa, Sweden, Columbia, Canada and Japan A delegation of seven from PP21 visited the bridge and the camps during the forum, expressing their support and solidarity. The delegation included Dr Manfred Ringhoffer of AHURA Japan (the 2nd largest funder of Bhutan), 2 other Japanese, and one from Sweden, Switzerland and Vietnam. (Sweden and Switzerland are also large donors to Bhutan.) 3.2 ICHRRD The International Coalition for Human Rights, Refugees and Development (ICHRRD) met in London on 29th Jan '96. In a circular seeking endorsement from countries around the world, they expressed their concern over the arrest and detention in India of Bhutanese "voluntarily returning to their homeland." The ICHRRD has charged Bhutan with not taking "adequate" steps to resolve the crisis and has urged the UN Secretary General Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali to 'initiate steps "to facilitate substantive talks" on the crisis triggered by the anti-Nepali policy of Bhutanese rulers.' 3.3 UN Human Rights Commission Ratan Gazmere, Campaign Coordinator of the Appeal Movement Coordinating Council which organized the Bhutanese refugee peace marches, is to lobby on behalf of the refugees in Geneva at the United Nations Human Rights Commission later this month. The South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) has prepared the following resolution, intended to be debated for adoption. _________________________________________________________________ Members of the UN Human Rights Commission in 1996 53 UN Member-States (listed at the end of this document) will be represented in the UN Human Rights Commission that will vote/reject UN actions on human rights concerns of the world during the 52nd UN Human Rights Commission Meeting (March 18 - April 27, 1996). Bhutanese Crisis and the United Nations. International Human Rights NGOs are jointly going to table the following Resolution for adoption during the 52nd Session of UN Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva. The Resolution will have to be supported (vote for) by atleast 27 member states (See the list of 53 member states of the Commission) for it to be adopted by the Commission. Once adopted the UN will take appropriate action to sol ve the problem. The Resolution is based (primarily fundamental human rights) on the principle demands the AMCC has been putting forward towards finding a solution to human rights/refugee problem. Draft Resolution on Humanitarian Implications of Refugees of Bhutanese Nationality in Nepal. The Commission on Human Rights Guided by the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees and mindful of responsibilities under the Charters of the United Nations to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, Reaffirms the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Recognizing the right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country as enshrined under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Expresses concern about the arrest and detention of hundreds Bhutanese refugees who were voluntarily returning to their country, Bhutan by the Indian Police, Cognizant of the humanitarian implications of the presence of 90,000 Bhutanese refugees in camps in Nepal, Concerned about the failure of even incremental progress in the bilateral discussions between Nepal and Bhutan towards a resolution of the crisis, Concerned that the Royal Government of Bhutan has not taken adequate steps to resolve the crisis, Reaffirms the need to provide such international guarantees that may be necessary to secure the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bhutan, Recognizing the legitimate concerns of the Royal Government of Bhutan as to fears about illegal immigrants, Stressing the need for resolution of the Bhutanese refugee crisis in view of the serious humanitarian implications, Welcoming the invitations extended by the Royal Government of Bhutan to the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Amnesty International and International Committee of the Red Cross, Regretting that the Royal Government of Bhutan has not taken necessary steps to bring the human rights violators to justice, 1. Calls upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure adequate flow of humanitarian aid and assistance to the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal, 2. Urges the Royal Government of Bhutan to invite the Special Rapporteur on Forced Evictions [OR invite the Representative of the UN Secretary General for Mass Exodus] to visit the country and extend its full cooperation to enable him to report during the fifty-third session of the Commission on Human Rights to investigate the matter. 3. Requests the Secretary General in the light of the prevailing impasse in the bilateral talks between Bhutan and Nepal to take such steps as may be necessary to facilitate substantive talks on the refugee crisis, This may include : (a) To encourage the Government of Nepal and Bhutan to seek the assistance of a facilitator in their negotiations on the issue, (b) Set up an International Arbitration Committee of experts to examine the nationality status of the refugees through a process of individual determination. That this International Arbitration Committee consults with the Governments of Bhutan, Nepal and UNHCR in this regard, (c) Reaffirm the role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as the nodal agency to facilitate and monitor the return of the refugees to their homes in safety and dignity, (d) Request State parties to make voluntary contributions to Nepal and to assist in the rehabilitation and resettlement process of any refugees presently residing in the camps who may not qualify to meet the satisfaction of the International Arbitration Committee of experts, (e) Request State parties to make voluntary contributions to Bhutan to assist in the rehabilitation and resettlement process of returning refugees, 4. Decides to consider the progress made to resolve the Bhutanese refugee crisis in a separate agenda during the fifty-third session of the Commission on Human Rights. N.B.The above draft resolution was prepared by South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre and ammended by Appeal Movement Coordinating Council. This resolution may be further ammended. _____________________________________________________ You can do some or all of these action as an individual or group: Express your concern through letters, post cards, phone, fax on Bhutan's human rights situation and the Bhutanese refugees and the Peace March to the diplomatic missions (specially the ones in the list) in your country. Ask these diplomatic missions to relay your concerns urgently to their representatives in the Geneva UN Mission and that their Geneva representaives raise the issue in the ongoing UN Human Rights Commission meetings by taking a appropriate resolution. Send a fax to the UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Hosse Ayala Lasso asking them to take note of the Bhutanese Human Rights and Refugee Crisis and that they undertake urgent steps to encourage the Commission to take a decisive step on the Bhutanese crisis. Send a fax to your own country's representative in Geneva to consider supporting the Bhutanese resolution in the Commission Meeting. Membership Term expires in 31 Dec. Algeria 1997 Angola 1997 Australia 1996 Austria 1996 Bangaladesh 1997 Belarus 1998 Benin 1997 Bhutan 1997 Brazil 1998 Bulgaria 1997 Cameroon 1996 Canada 1997 Chile 1997 China 1996 Cote d'Ivoire 1996 Colombia 1997 Cuba 1997 Dominican Republic 1997 Denmark 1998 Egypt 1997 El Salvador 1997 Ecuador 1996 Ethiopia 1997 France 1998 Gabon 1997 Germany 1996 Guinea-Bissau 1998 Hungary 1996 Membership Term expires in 31 Dec. India 1997 Indonesia 1996 Italy 1996 Japan 1996 Malawi 1996 Mauritania 1996 Mali 1998 Malaysia 1998 Mexico 1998 Madagascar 1998 Nepal 1997 Netherlands 1997 Nicaragua 1997 Pakistan 1998 Peru 1996 Philippines 1997 Republic of Korea 1998 Russian Federation 1997 Sri Lanka 1997 U S A 1998 Uganda 1998 Ukraine 1998 United Kingdom of Great Britain and N. Ireland 1997 United States of America 1998 Venezuela 1996 Zimbabwe 1997 _______________________________________________________________ Sample letter in support of resolving the Bhutanese refugee crisis ____________________________________________________________ Introduction I am writing to express my grave concern regarding the situation of the Bhutanese refugees languishing in the UNHCR camps of eastern Nepal. The Bhutanese refugees have now been in exile for 6 years following a policy ethnic cleansing by the government of Bhutan. The previous 6 rounds of ministerial talks between the governments of Nepal and Bhutan have produced nothing substantive. Recently, there have been a number of significant developments in the Indian sub-continent both with the refugees peacefully demonstrating in India and between the governments concerned. _________________________________________________________________ 1. Bilateral Talks Between Bhutan and Nepal. In an interview with the 'Indian Express` newspaper, King Jigme Wangchuk of Bhutan declared that "99% of the refugees currently camped in eastern Nepal are not Bhutanese nationals." In direct contrad iction, the Foreign Minister of Nepal, Dr. Lohani, has said that "all of the refugees..... are Bhutanese" and "must be allowed to return to Bhutan with dignity." Bhutan continues to refuse any proce ss for verification of refugee status. The next round of talks are due to begin in early April. India continues to refuse involvement. Without International involvement, it is difficult to see how any meaningful progress can be made vis-a -vis repatriation when Bhutan resolutely denies any legitimate claim. 2. Security of the Refugees During the same visit to India, there have been reports of an extradition agreement between the governments of India and Bhutan. It is interesting that a government which denies any right to citizens hip, should seek the extradition of individuals demonstrating in another country, while being resident in a third. Some commentators believe that the intention of the agreement is to declare Bhutanese living in exile to be criminals (according to the Bhutanese security act Tsa Wa Sum) and to hand them over to the Bhutanese government to suppress the democratic movement. The death penalty applies for infringements of Tsa Wa Sum since this was approved in March 1990. At the same time, Bhutanese refugee peace marchers continue to be held in Indian jails under Cr.PC Sections 144 and 151; the later being invoked after detention under the former was declared illegal by the Indian courts. 3. Proposals 1. I would ask that Her Majesty's Government pursue all avenues to exert individual and International influence upon the Government of Bhutan, that they resolve the human rights violations in Bhuta n and the Bhutanese refugee crisis. 2. I would ask that Her Majesty's Government pursue all avenues to exert individual and International influence upon the Government of Bhutan for the establishment of a truly democratic form of governance. 3. I would ask that Her Majesty's Government urge that all British and International aid be linked to tangible improvements in Human Rights performance. 4. I would ask that Her Majesty's Government pursue all avenues to exert individual and International influence upon the Government of India, that they grant free passage to the Bhutanese refugees exercising their basic human rights to peaceful demonstration and return to their own country. Thank you for your ongoing time and commitment to this matter. Yours sincerely