Withdrawal symptoms
originally published in Nation, 30 May 2004

UNHCR has made it clear through a series of statements from its headquarters in Geneva, and in Katmandu that come what may, any likely extension of its December 2005 deadline for the pullout from the camps may be stretched by six months at most. But refugee leaders are apprehensive about the proposed pullout

BY JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI
IN DAMAK

As the hope of a negotiated settle- ment with Bhutan and repatria-tion of refugees fades, the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, has unveiled a phase-out plan that some insiders say was long overdue.

UNHCR will phase down its role in the Bhutanese refugee camps to protection level alone, which UN officials insist is UNHCR’s true mandate in protracted refugee crises. The agency will then only be responsible for extremely vulnerable cases (like cases of sexual and gender-based violence) where the refugees cannot return home. UNHCR has already made it clear through a series of statements from its headquarters in Geneva, and in Katmandu that come what may, any likely extension of its December 2005 deadline for the pullout from the camps may be stretched by six months at most. 

Does it then imply the end of the refugee movement for repatriation? No, says S. B. Subba, a refugee leader, “We will still re-group and we will still be agitating for a dignified repatriation.” Refugee leaders say the UNHCR withdrawal will seriously hurt the refugees.

The agency officials, however, insist their plan is foolproof and will provide a durable solution to the refugee stalemate that dates back to the early 1990s. Though UNHCR still hopes that bona fide refugees will get repatriated by the 2005 deadline, there are clear hints that it considers local integration a viable option. This means that the ethnic Nepalis in the camps will probably be assimilated into the larger society outside the camp. Should that happen, Nepal will likely witness a very visible addition to its population—in one region, at one time.

The logic behind the seemingly ambitious pullout plan is simple enough, according to officials: just as UNHCR phases out from the care and assistance part of the refugee operation, other bilateral donors like GTZ, JICA, USAID and DANIDA will step in, including other UN agencies.

“We are not going to leave a vacuum behind,” says a UNHCR official. “Even if we fail to engage donors directly, we’re hopeful that the host government would do the ‘burden-sharing.’ We are also negotiating with the government in this regard. Yes, it’s true that we assist and render protection to refugees, but only in cases where the governments are unable to.”

But refugee leaders fear that it may not turn out to be as simple as officials make it sound. They express deep concerns over the feasibility of the proposed transition. Their apprehension: other agencies just don’t have the all-round expertise of UNHCR in handling refugees. “It doesn’t seem quite feasible given the different field of expertise they (UNHCR) possess,” says Subba, chairman of the Bhutanese Refugee Representatives Repatriation Committee (BRRRC).

UNHCR must stay, he insists. “Bilateral donors cannot be a substitute to UNHCR nor can the UN agency unprecedentedly delegate its mandate.” Apart from legal protection, the refugees in the camps receive a wide range of assistance from the UN agency like daily ration, clothes, and materials to build homes, medical aid and education. As a part of phase-down, these facilities will be scrapped.

Last year, refugees had to face serious problems of readjustments when UNHCR shut down child play centers and kindergartens, deleted turmeric powder from the ration list and reduced funding for higher secondary education. UNHCR says it spends $120 per refugee annually in the camps.

Much like the refugee leaders, some foreign diplomats in Kathmandu whose interest and consent the agency is counting on, do not appear quite enthusiastic about the UN pullout. A senior U.S. diplomat earlier this month expressed disbelief (in an email message to this reporter) over directly involving bilateral donors in the transition of the assistance. “...I don’t believe USAID or any other bilateral donors will be involved in the transition of assistance from UNHCR—they plan to continue assistance programs through UN agencies.”

The diplomats also expressed uncertainty over the time-frame of the transition process.“…I don’t know when UNHCR actually intends to begin the phase out, although I assume we will be briefed once they have a concrete plan.”

The news of phase-out and transition has already created a sense of panic among refugees here. Sources say the newly elected Camp Secretaries and Members have threatened to resign en masse as a symbolic protest.

It’s been an interesting policy shift for the UN refugee agency. From “We wouldn’t pull out of the camps till a durable solution is found” six months ago to a drastically changed—”We might” and now “We will.” It all started last fall.

When laying out his plan for Bhutanese refugees before an executive committee meeting in Geneva on 29 September 2003, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Rudd Lubbers had said that his office would promote self-reliance projects to facilitate local integration and gradual phasing-out of UNHCR’s direct involvement.

“I have decided to take three key measures,” Lubbers said, “first, since the Nepalese government has offered to settle those [refugees] willing to remain, and grant them citizenship, my office will promote self-reliance projects to facilitate their [local] integration. Second, my office will support resettlement initiatives for vulnerable cases. Third…we will not promote returns.”

The funds saved from the phase-out here is likely to be directed to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa, all troubled spots. In a statement issued in March, the UNHCR said it was “downsizing its assistance” for Bhutanese refugees as it has “other areas to focus on.”

Although observers here agree that the self-reliance projects might be the best option for a dignified life, in light of the refugee stalemate, they however say that a graceful homeward
journey might become more difficult once the camps have been dismantled.

With Tiku Gauchan in Kathmandu