UNHCR curtails Article 19 says HRWF Nepal

Kathmandu, April 19: Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF) Nepal has accused United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) of curtailing freedom of expression.

Issuing a press statement, HRWF said UNHCR’s country representative Daisy Dell sent a letter of clarification referrering an article written by Thomas Hardaker, an intern at HRWF.

The UNHCR said the article ‘Reform to Inform Refugees’ published in The Kathmandu Post daily of April 2, contained inaccurate information.

“This article contains inaccurate information and statements regarding the work of UNHCR and International Organization of Migration (IOM)” stated the letter sent by UNHCR. “Kindly note that neither UNHCR nor IOM were contacted by the author to verify the information contained in the article”, the UNHCR's letter mentioned.

HRWF said the UNHCR requested that before any articles are published on exiled Bhutanese issues in the future, the writer must contact IOM and UNHCR to verify the facts.

“We consider this a curtailment of our freedom of expression, protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -1948 as under their request we must seek permission to publish based on their version of the facts”, read the HRWF’s statement.

HRWF claimed that the experience and knowledge amounted over time it worked on issue of exiled Bhutanese enables it to assist in the accurate attainment of facts and consequently it can prove the particulars founding the aforementioned article.

HRWF has been actively engaged in exiled issue for more than half a decade.  Bhutan News Service

Letter addressed to Human Rights Without Frontiers by Daisy Dell, Country Representative, UNHCR

This refers to the article of titled “Reform to inform refugees" by Thomas Hardaker, an intern at your organization, published in Kathmandu Post of 2nd April, 2008. This article contains inaccurate information and statements regarding the work of UNHCR and International Organization of Migration (IOM).

Kindly note that neither UNHCR nor IOM were contacted by the author to verify the information contained in the article.

There are three durable solutions to the problems of refugees: voluntary repatriation to their homeland, local integration in their host country and resettlement to a third country. In Nepal, voluntary repatriation is presently not an option for refugees from Bhutan, despite long lasting and continuing efforts by the Government of Nepal, the International Community and UNHCR. After seventeen years in the camp, third countries have generously offered to receive those refugees who wish to resettle and, to provide them with the opportunity of a new life.

In November 2007, the Government of Nepal agreed to this option. Since then UNHCR has been providing information to the refugee on all aspects of resettlement so that they can decide about their future on the basis of a free and informed choice. UNHCR disseminates information about resettlement in the camp through mass meeting, posters, leaflets, radio messages and focus-group meetings with women, youth and refugees with disabilities.

Contrary to the affirmation contained in Mr. Hardaker's article, UNHCR has never conducted hut to hut resettlement campaigns with the help of armed guards. The armed police are deployed by the Government of Nepal at the request of UNHCR to ensure law and order in the camps and do not play any role in the resettlement process.

IOM also undertakes information sharing on the resettlement process. IOM participates in the information sessions in the refugee camps providing factual information about resettlement to the United States.

For refugees who have made the decision to be resettled, and after they have been accepted by the resettlement country, IOM provides Cultural Orientation courses. These three-five day courses provide specific information not only on the Travel Loan and Refugees Legal Status but also on the Pre-Departure Process, Resettlement Agencies, Community Services, Housing, Transportation, Employment, Education, and much more. Most importantly, these courses provide refugees an opportunity to raise issues and ask questions of personal significance.

We would highly appreciate if, in the future, UNHCR or IOM are contacted to verify the facts, before publishing article on refugee related issues.

Response from Raju Thapa (Human Rights Without Frontiers)
This refers to the letter of objection sent to Human Rights Without Frontiers regarding an article ‘Reform to Inform Refugees’ written by one of our inters Thomas Hardaker. 

The author feels he must sincerely apologize for the misspelling of Mrs. Daisy Dell’s name; it is an unfortunate mistake and by no means was any offence intended.  However we contend that this was the only inaccurate aspect of the article to which your letter refers.

Firstly, it is regrettable that the UNHCR has opted for such a direct, private route of rebuttal. We hope the UNHCR has the confidence in its argument to publicly challenge our view point in the media. According to the writer, he welcomes any challenge to the article, as it is founded upon reliable, professional sources that are equally offended by your attempts to suppress the truth about the situation in the refugee camps under the UNCHRs direct control.

Secondly, the manner in which the UNHCR requires information of our intention to publish articles is a gross encroachment upon our fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression under article 19 of the UDHR to which everyone must abide. The UNHCR is in no position to attempt the curtailment of our fundamental rights and similarly I, as President of Human Rights Without Frontiers, Nepal can only advise my staff, members, interns, volunteers and the people associated with my organization to be diligent and accurate in the voicing of their opinions. I believe that in this case my advice has been adhered to and that despite the UNHCR allegation of inaccuracy, the article was indeed based upon accurate fact.

I and my organization have been actively engaged in Bhutanese refugee issues for more than half a decade, the experience and knowledge amounted over this time enables me to assist in the accurate attainment of facts, consequently I can prove the particulars founding the writers opinion.

To respond to the third paragraph of your letter, the nature and extent of the ‘long lasting and continuous efforts by the UNHCR, the international community and the Government of Nepal’ is strictly a matter of opinion. It would be greatly appreciated if the author’s opinion was respected in line with his fundamental rights. The UNHCR has absolutely no jurisdiction to attempt to suppress this viewpoint.

It is clear that you have given little consideration to the actual contents of the article. Why does the UNHCR feel it is necessary to inform us that resettlement has been ‘generously offered’ when the same sentiments are conveyed in the first paragraph of the writers article which you unjustly refute?

My organization receives testimony from refugees who live in the camps, and they are concerned about the lack of information being imparted to them about the resettlement process. The UNCHR may also wish to utilize its time more productively and instead of petitioning the writer, I suggest it turns its attention to the press conference in the Goldhap camp during the visit of Ellen R Sauerbrey. During this conference refugees were invited to ask questions on resettlement, according to Mr Vidhyapati Mishra’s article ‘Voluntary Options For Refugees’ who was in attendance, the responses given ‘made refugees laugh’ at the delegates inetness.
May I also call your attention to the report of Human Rights Watch, Last Hope: The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India found at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/bhutan0507/index.htm, which expresses the refugees concerns at the lack of information imparted to them.

Again my suspicions lead me to believe that your consideration of the article was at best remedial, as you fail to counter the authors point about the elderly refugees, it would be far more efficient for both the writer and the UNHCR if you could form your objections upon that which was actually written.

Furthermore it would be extremely beneficial if the UNHCR was to investigate the claims made in the article before attempting to disprove them. Regarding the hut to hut campaigning, allow me to draw your attention to the appeal of the seven democratically elected camp secretaries to the Prime Minister of Nepal on the 11th December 2007,  titled, ‘An appeal for appropriate action and justice’ (please find attached). The appeal is signed by all seven of the refugee camp secretaries; please focus your attention to point 3 of the appeal.

‘Kindly urge UNHCR to stop motivation by hut to hut campaigning accompanied by armed security forces…’ I would respectfully request an explanation as to why the camp secretaries feel concerned enough to publish an appeal if the UNHCR has ‘never conducted hut to hut resettlement campaigns’. I would further request an apology from the UNHCR for its uninformed accusation of inaccuracy on the part of Thomas Hardaker.

(Seventh paragraph)  “For refugees who have made the decision to be resettled, and after they have been accepted by the resettlement country, IOM provides Cultural Orientation courses. These three-five day courses provide specific information not only on the Travel Loan and Refugees Legal Status but also on the Pre-Departure Process, Resettlement Agencies, Community Services, Housing, Transportation, Employment, Education, and much more. Most importantly, these courses provide refugees an opportunity to raise issues and ask questions of personal significance.”

In the above paragraph of your letter you state that IOM provides cultural orientation and specific information on the above issues ‘after they (the refugee) have been accepted by the resettlement country’. This is in contradiction to your earlier statement in the third paragraph which states that the ‘UNHCR has been providing information to the refugees on all aspects of resettlement so that they can decide about their future on the basis of a free informed choice.’ 

As you admit to only giving the information once the refugee has been accepted by the third country. How were they to make a fair and informed decision prior to their application, in lieu of this information?  Once the application is accepted, any refusal on the part of the refugee to resettle results in their elimination from the process in the future. 

Furthermore in legal terms the ‘acceptance’ of an offer binds the parties and creates a contract, given the professional nature of the UNHCR I can rest assured that it was the intention of your organization to use ‘acceptance’ in its legal capacity and I can take confidence in the intention on the part of the resettlement countries to enter into legally binding relations with the refugees. This binding nature is of concern due to the fact that a refugee must take the travel loan to enable them to reach the third country, so it is a constitutive part of the acceptance.

However the information given about the loan is imparted after the acceptance, they are legally responsible to the charge before they are informed about it. Of course your defense of this unusual legal situation will be based on the fact that the refugee has the right to decline resettlement. Again the problem with this is that once a refugee withdraws from the TCR process they are permanently excluded from it. 

We would highly appreciate that in future the UNHCR reacts publicly upon its objections to the writer’s opinions, to create an open environment of fact sharing and co-operation in light of the problems associated to the refugee issues. We would appreciate that before any rebuttal and accusations are made from your side, that they are founded on fact. In the same vain, I would request that our freedom of expression is respected and that a decision to inform you of our intentions solely rests upon our choice.