Reform to inform 'refugees' (Reproduction)
By THOMAS HARDAKER
"Travel loans are a long constituted practice for many Western countries allowing resettlement of refugees, they are sometime essential to quell domestic pressure against spending tax money on foreigners".
There is a serious lacuna in the information imparted to the refugees about their futures in the countries making up the core group. Of course, it is true that the United States is offering its helping hand to 60,000 Bhutanese refugees who have now been languishing in the overcrowded, harsh environments of the seven camps in eastern Nepal for almost 18 years. In this respect they are alleviating the suffering of a substantial number of refugees.
However, a closer assessment of the facts provokes many questions as to the extent of the humanitarian motive supposedly directing the actions of the core group and the UNHCR in tandem.
There are three options open to the refugees in theory, repatriation, local integration and third country resettlement (TCR). In practical terms, however, there is little alternative, third country resettlement is increasingly looked upon as a Hobson’s choice for those in the camps to secure a new life. For justice to be granted to the refugees all three options should be pursued by the concerned agencies, organizations and nations with equal energy, to create a comprehensive and durable solution.
At present only the TCR is considered as a solution and even this is regarded as a temporary solution by the UNHCR’s country representative Daisy Dale.
It is totally the choice of individual refugees to decide on their fate, if they wish to relocate to a third country represented in the core working group, they should be free to do so. Any coercion against their will is a flagrant breach of their rights and reminiscent of the attitude advocated by the Wangchuck dynasty which sought to displace them in 1989 and through the 1990s.
However, the UNHCR has been conducting hut to hut resettlement campaigns with the help of armed guards. The presence of armed guards serves to connote a reality that the UNHCR may not desire to present, but never-the-less it is viewed by refugees as an ultimatum. It is an intimidation in civility. From what they are accustomed to if someone turns up at your door with a gun, you do as you are told.
The important point to make is that any choice must be well informed, fair and impartial. The US Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, Ellen R Sauerbrey has stressed the ‘voluntary’ nature of any decision to resettle. But for a decision to be voluntary it needs to be properly understood. The refugees are not located in a hub of easily accessible information. They have no computers and are seldom privy to international news on any comprehensive scale. They learn the vast majority of information regarding their resettlement from the UN agencies and the countries waiting to accept them. Can this imparting be necessarily considered as impartial?
What information is given to those refugees who are applying for resettlement? What do they understand about the mechanisms in place to help them? I regret to think very little. Nepal in conjunction with the core group and UNHCR must initiate steps to teach the refugees about the program they are about to enroll in.
A good example of the lacuna in information resides in the issue of the travel loan. This mysterious credit tool escapes even the most determined researcher, when enquiry is made into its specific constitution.
Travel loans are a long constituted practice for many Western countries allowing resettlement of refugees, they are sometime essential to quell domestic pressure against spending tax money on foreigners. The US states that any repayment from the repaid loan goes back into funding the travel of other refugees. According to the International Organization for Migration, the loans are repayable as per the schedule agreed to. Failure to comply with the repayment schedule may result in legal action, in which the refugees will be subject to interest accumulated, solicitor’s fees and collection costs.
The most suseptable group of resettlers is the elderly, if they cannot work, how will they repay the loan? America assures that social welfare programs will meet the deficit. However, currently there are upto 2 million people homeless in the States, if the welfare system isn’t capable of securing its own citizens, how can it be expected to help refugees?
American statistical information from 2002 shows that 43 percent of all travel loans have not been repaid. The voluntary non-governent resettlement agencies known as (Volags) are responsible for the refugees’ welfare for four months and subsequently to collect loan payments. They gain 25 percent of the repayment for their services. This in itself contradicts the American stance which states that all repaid loans are directly reinvested into resettling more refugees.
The concept of the travel loan is not exactly in line with a humanitarian motive; its image is only made more sinister by the lack of information given about it. Its repayment terms and conditions must be clearly specified and understood by those wishing to indebt themselves to the legal charge. I feel that a satisfactory effort has not been made to clarify this issue of resettlement with those concerned. Furthermore, the language used is misleading. The refugees are made to sign a ‘promissory note’, legally this is simply a contract, is there a reason to play with semantics?
There are a lot of important questions which have escaped any real attention. They are brushed aside in the excitement of a new life outside the camps. It is very easy to manipulate those who have nothing, the refugees do not want to ‘rock the boat’ which may deliver them to a promised land.
However, the lack of information is causing anxiety amongst the refugee population and fueling misinformation, significantly adding to confusion and uncertainty. With the lack of clarity comes suspicion of motive, if the core group wants to end speculation and worry, they should actively seek to provide answers to the refugees’ questions.
The Bhutanese refugees are particulary sensitive to their legal status. Already they have been forcefully disenfranchised through contrived legal documentation supposing that they voluntarily left their country of orign. It is not suggested that any such practice will be undertoaken by the resettlement countries. However, it is essential that the refugees entering the TCR program are reassured on the legality of their citizenship once they are resttled. All actions taken in regard to the resettlement of refugees must be taken solely in regard to their welfare.
(The writer is an intern of Human Rights without Frontiers, International.)
Source: The Kathmandu Post, April 2, 2008 (Wednesday)