Secure resettlement urged, Adikari family in Kathmandu

Editor
-
26,644

Damak, July 31: The Bhutanese citizens dwelling in Pathri, Sanischare camp have today asked the United States of America to provide security for the resettled Bhutanese.
The appeal made by members of camp management committee (CMC), former CMC members, senior citizens and human right activists requested to make resettlement program secure, well managed and as per the choice of refugees.
“The US have encouraged the refugees for secure resettlement,” read the appeal adding, “Everyone looks for the greener pastures, even a stoic goat. And, thus, many refugees, keeping aside their vision of repatriation, opted for a secured resettlement in third countries and USA is one of them.”
Highlighting the slaying of Hari Lal Adhikari in Florida, the exiled Bhutanese have asked the concerned authority continue resettlement with guaranteed life security. Similarly, the paper made an appeal to pressurize the Bhutanese government for early repatriation.
According to the letter, the Bhutanese in camps are suspicious on their security after resettlement.
The appeal was submitted to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the government of Nepal, the U.S. Embassies in various countries, and National Human Rights Organization, Nepal.
The refugees have opted for resettlement keeping aside their strong desire for repatriation and they must be well protected in the resettling country, said the appeal.
Meanwhile, all the remaining members of Adhikari have been brought to Kathmandu transit center of International Organization for Migration (IOM) today morning. According to the family sources, IOM will take them shortly to join their family in Florida.
The editor of Bhutan News Service from New York City has confirmed that Trumaine Branch, 21, who was arrested Thurday and accused of killing Hari Lal Adhikari, was denied bond.
Branch made his first appearance in court Friday. He was officially charged with ownership of a firearm, murder and armed robbery.

(Compiled with inputs from Bhim Gurung in Pathri camp & T.P. Mishra in NY)

Suspect arrested in Florida (Reproduction)

Editor
-
26,644

Jacksonville police this morning arrested a felon in Sunday’s fatal shooting of a Bhutanese refugee and learned the victim was targeted because he was an immigrant, according to a state prosecutor.

arrest_073009
The arrested suspect, Trumaine Branch, 21

Trumaine Branch, 21, is charged with murder in the death of Hari Adhikari, 21, who was fatally shot during a robbery at the Stonemont Village Apartments in South Metro, said Assistant State Attorney Mark Caliel. Adhikari was robbed of his cellphone and wallet and was shot in the chest at point blank range as he held his hands up, family members said.

The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office Web site indicates that Branch, of the 2400 block of West Lincoln Court, also is charged with armed robbery with a deadly weapon and possession of firearm by a convicted felon. He is scheduled to have a court appearance Friday morning.

An arrest report released this afternoon said that the homicide team, lead by detective Don Alexander, retrieved cell phone records for Adhikari’s phone and found that one call was made from the phone about an hour after the murder. Police traced the call to Branch’s girlfriend at his home.

Police contacted the girlfriend, who cooperated with investigators. Her information and clues provided by others who knew Branch led to the arrest, said Lt. Larry Schmitt, who leads the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office homicide unit.

The report said that detective Dennis Sullivan and Sgt. D.S. Coarsey spotted Branch near his home about 4 a.m. today and picked him up. He denied any knowledge of the slaying and was jailed without bail, the report said.

Court records show that Branch was convicted of auto theft in 2007 and was sentenced to a year in prison. He was released in August 2008. Branch also pleaded no contest to a trespassing charge earlier this year, for which he received a fine, and to a burglary charge in 2007, for which he got probation.

A charge of unarmed carjacking in April was dropped against Branch, but new information developed since his arrest has caused that case to be reopened, Caliel said. He declined to elaborate.

Caliel said authorities learned Adhikari was attacked because immigrants like him were seen as hard workers who were known to carry cash and made good targets to rob. A number of immigrant families from the same area in South Asia live in the apartment complex.

Adhikari, his parents and a brother were resettled in Jacksonville five months ago after spending 17 years in a Nepalese refugee camp. They are natives of Bhutan and fled that South Asian country because of political strife.

Adhikari is one of at least 19 immigrants slain in Jacksonville in the past five years, most in robberies. Two Jacksonville men were sentenced to death and life, respectively, last week in the separate slayings of two immigrants from Albania and Cuba. Both slayings occurred during robberies.

Caliel promised a vigorous prosecution in Adhikari’s slaying.

“It’s disturbing that our citizens of this nature, who work hard and struggle to bring about a new life here in the United States, are specifically being targeted,” Caliel said.

News of the arrest has spread quickly through the local Bhutanese community, which numbers about 60 families.

Dilli Mishra, a Buthanese immigrant and friend of the victim’s, said Adhikari’s family called to tell him the news. He said the family and others were pleased and felt more secure after worrying that the killer may return to strike at others.

“At least we’ve got relief that someone was caught,” Mishra said.

As for Adhikari’s killer and the victim being targeted as an immigrant, Mishra said, “I think the guy who murdered him is not a human being. He is evil-minded.”

Wednesday night about 40 local Bhutanese crowded into the Adhikari apartment, deeply shaken by the slaying. Many of the refugees said they felt targeted.

“They say they do quite often receive harassment from people in the area,” said Dharma Acharya, an immigrant from Nepal who has lived in Jacksonville for about 15 years.

Word of the slaying has spread through the refugee camps in Nepal. Elaine Carson, director of World Relief’s Jacksonville office, said the agency has been working with the U.S. State Department to expedite the arrival in Jacksonville of Adhikari’s two brothers from one of the camps. That could happen early next week.
Carson, whose agency resettled the victim and his parents, said there are plans to help the family move to another apartment complex. For those who remain, the manager of Stonemont Village is planning to add more lighting, security cameras and possibly will offer an apartment to a police officer, Carson said.

Jacksonville.com

US to promptly rescue Adhikari remaining members from camp

Editor
-
26,644

Beldangi-II, July 30: The four members who are being processed for resettlement in America will soon be taken to join the funeral ceremony of late Hari Lal Adhikari in Florida.

According to his brother Padam Lal Adhikari, both International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have assured them of immediate travel to America, where a half of their family traumatized with ruthless slain is waiting for reunion.

“We have packed up everything”, said Padam adding, “IOM has told us to be ready, and we’ll leave the camp at anytime.”

Our father in Florida has refused to accept the deceased body of my brother before we reach there, lamented Padam with his eyes full of tears.

He quoted David Derthick, the Chief of IOM in Nepal, as saying that they will find all mechanisms to ask the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu for immediate rescue from camps.

Though not confirmed by the family, it is likely that Padam with other three members will fly to America early the next week.

Meanwhile, Bhutan News Service has received a circular on behalf of PRM’s Coordinator in Nepal via a yahoogroup yesterday raising important concern regarding the killing of the Bhutanese citizen in America. Click here to download circular

The circular subjected as ‘UNHCR/IOM response to murder of Bhutanese refugee in the U.S.’ wrote -life in the camps is not without risks, but the risks in the resettlement countries will be different from what the refugees are accustomed to.

“It is getting a lot of attention in the camps and in the local media. UNHCR is planning focus group meetings in the camps over the next two weeks to place the crime in context, to counter some of the misinformation that is being circulated, and explain in broad terms how criminal justice systems in the resettlement countries work,” said the circular.

( Compiled with inputs from Khem Shandilya, the editor of Bhutan Jagaran, in Beldangi-II)

HUROB condemns slaying in America

Editor
-
26,644

Damak, July 29 : Two days after killing a young resettled Bhutanese in America, the Human Rights Organization of Bhutan (HUROB) has strongly condemned the ruthless slain.

Hari Adhikari's Sister-in-law outside her hut in Beldangi-2 camp with her well-wishers
Hari Adhikari's Sister-in-law outside her hut in Beldangi-2 camp with her well-wishers / Photo: Tikaram/tititopiromitho

The statement issued by the HUROB carried that resettled Bhutanese in America are fearing their safety and dignified living.

It has accused the UNHCR, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for showing documentary films of luxurious home with cars, just with an intention of motivating the Bhutanese in exile.

“Such films bewildered the mind of refugees and their message of existence of peace and tranquility in absence of any violence and threat to life lured the most.”

S.B. Subba, the chief coordinator of the HUROB has mentioned in the statement that some resettling Bhutanese even sold their landed properties for capturing flying dreams in America.

The right body has also requested the US government to provide security to the resettled Bhutanese, without leaving them to become the victims of miscreants.

It has also expressed its deep condolence to the bereaved family of the deceased and sympathy to other victims of attacks.

SLC Result & Convesation with BNS Editor

Editor
-
26,644

Jiban Bhattarai talks with TP Mishra, editor of Bhutan News Service before he left for NY under resettlement program. In second part, Khem Kafle from Beldangi-II updates the degarding SLC results of the Bhutanese students this year.

Adhikari was robbed and killed (Update)

Editor
-
26,644
Tika Adhikari, 65 and a refugee from Bhutan, holds a photograph of his son Hari Adhikari, 21, who was shot and killed during an apparent robbery Sunday night at the Stonemont Village Apartments on Jacksonville's Southside/(RICK WILSON/The Times-Union)
Tika Adhikari, 65 and a refugee from Bhutan, holds a photograph of his son Hari Adhikari, 21, who was shot and killed during an apparent robbery Sunday night at the Stonemont Village Apartments on Jacksonville's Southside/(RICK WILSON/The Times-Union)

Jacksonville (Florida), July 27: Tika Adhikari, 65, father of Hari Lal Adhikari, who was shot and killed, confirmed that his son was gunned-down during an apparent robbery Sunday night at the Stonemont Village Apartments on Jacksonville’s Southside.
He was robbed of his wallet and a cell phone by a gunman who shot him at point blank range and then walked off.

An American media has written that the victim is at least the 19th immigrant slain in Jacksonville in the past five years where most of the killings have occurred during robberies.
The Jacksonville.com uploaded the update on Adhikari shooting at 1:00 pm local time.

The website quoted Karen Croke, a staff at World Relief refugee resettlement agency, which brought Adhikari and his family to Jacksonville five months ago, as saying that it was disheartening to see someone escape from horrendous living conditions, only to meet with such violence in his new home.

According to this portal, Adhikari was shot in the parking lot of the complex and received a gun at his chest before he shouted for help.

The victim was working at a nearby Wal-Mart for about two weeks and was attending Florida Community College at Jacksonville to learn English.

His family had relied on him for financial support and to help them settle in Jacksonville, his distraught father said through a translator wrote the Jacksonville.com.

Unidentified group gunned-down a resettled Bhutanese(Breaking news)

Editor
-
26,644

Florida, July 26: Hari Lal Adhikari, 21, a resettled Bhutanese in Jacksonville, Florida killed on the spot by a gunshot from an unknown group at 12:00 am local time.

The armed attackers attacked the boy just outside his apartment 2930 Stonemont, said Puspa Gautam in Utah State in America, according to our Norway correspondent.

Manoj Rai, the former camp secretary from Khudunabari camp, who is resettled in the same State, told Bhutan News Service that the police investigation was underway.

According to Gautam, Sumitra Timsina (Adhikari) resettled with him has gone unconscious when she heard of her brother’s death.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) took Adhikari family from Beldangi-II sector B/3-145/146 for resettlement in March this year.  A high-placed source at IOM was unable to confirm the news citing the possibility only by tomorrow.

However, our Beldangi correspondent Arjun Pradhan, who reached Adhikari’s hut in camp, confirmed the death. Now, his brother Padam Lal Adhikari resides in the hut with his four members.
According to family sources, Hari Lal reached Florida with his four other family members including his father Tika Ram Adhikari and mother Indra Maya.

A UN team from Damak-based UHNCR, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reached the Beldangi-II for the ground study. However, no details could be gathered due to off office hour in Nepal.

The Adhikari family said that World Relieve- resettlement agency – has been assisting for resettlement in Florida.

Details to follow

Bhutanese Media After Democracy

TP Mishra
-
26,644

IS there media freedom in Bhutan? Are Bhutanese citizens’ right to speech and expression guaranteed by the state? Are all citizens exercising their right to information as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Let’s first step into some dubious instances that themselves answer this question.

Attack
Bhutan InfoComm and Media Authority (BICMA) fined the Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS) regarding a panel discussion on pre-paid taxi services televised earlier this month. BICMA has asked the corporation to deposit a sum of Nu 18,000. A letter dispatched by BICMA says that it finds no adequate justification to consider such panel discussions are fair, decent and balanced in line with the Code of Ethics of Journalists. In response to the decision of BICMA, the BBS said the discussion was conducted with appropriate representation, including the Road Safety and Transport Authority (RSTA) and other stakeholders.

A question arises as to whether holding a panel discussion is beyond the ethics of journalists. It was the right of the BBS to hold such a panel discussion, and the former’s decision to fine is attention drawing. It is a severe attack on media freedom. Dubbing it contrary to the spirit of media freedom and thinking it could lead to undue restraints on the exercise of free speech in Bhutan, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) even showed deep concern.

As a government regulatory body, BICMA cannot prescribe limits for the press, ethics for journalists and guidelines for the content of the media or instruct journalists how a panel discussion ought to be held. Such attempts would undoubtedly be seen as a tactics to dictate media content. Bhutan’s repeated claim that it has already stepped into the democratisation process seems questionable since there still exists suppressive rules to keep the media under control.

Of late, the Bhutanese authority has declared a jail term of seven-and-a-half years to a refugee journalist, Shanti Ram Acharya, who had reached Bhutan to meet his relative. Acharya, 20, was arrested by the Bhutanese security forces on January 16, 2007 at Tashilakha area on charges of being a member of the underground Communist Party of Bhutan. Showing concern at the High Court’s sentencing of journalist Acharya, the international media watchdog said, “The IFJ urges Bhutan’s authorities to take a humanitarian view of the case of Acharya and review the harsh sentence imposed on him.”

Acharya was produced before the court for preliminary hearing only on March 16. This is against the right of the detainee. It is obvious he faced tremendous torture into confessing to the different charges. Besides, it also shows Bhutan’s unwillingness to respect and safeguard the fundamental rights and allow the freedom of movement and assembly to its citizens enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

The Bhutanese High Court claimed it granted full opportunity to journalist Acharya to plead. However, since the judiciary system in the country is still state-controlled, there is no way one can believe the court’s claims. It’s definite that Acharya failed to hire an attorney for his defense for two reasons, and these made him fall prey. One, Bhutan does not have independent attorneys who can be hired by an individual, and two, he lacked the financial backup because he was produced in court without the knowledge of his relatives and family members.

The police charge sheet against Acharya says he was arrested for taking photographs of an outpost of the Royal Bhutan Army with a digital camera, which does not provide enough evidence to prove he was acting against Bhutan. For sure, a journalist will take photos and this is his/her right. It might have been a wrong place – an outpost of the army – for taking the photos, thus, the Court’s order to sentence him for such a long time simply for taking photos sounds illogical.

Commitment
At this moment when the world is witnessing hasty changes in the media sector, Bhutan still lazes more or less where it was. The question of the state’s guarantee to media freedom, respect and safeguard of the public’s right to speech and expression still remain unanswered despite the regime’s claim that the country has already stepped into the democratisation process.

The citizen’s right to information has been trampled by the state for long, although Bhutan is a member of the United Nations, which guarantees such fundamental rights. Peoples’ democracy would remain a farce as long as there is no press freedom in the country. The so-claimed democracy does not have a free press, a must to drive the regime towards good governance.

Interestingly, the Bhutan Chapter of South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) remains silent on the issue as if to say there is complete press freedom in Bhutan. SAFMA’s aims at strengthening the networking among the media stakeholders, especially working journalists, to improve their professional standards through journalist’s education, training and capacity building and promotion of press freedom is, therefore, questionable.

The media sector has to operate in a free and fair atmosphere so that democracy can foster. The ongoing practices opted by the media houses inside Bhutan in themselves are not adequate. Besides, a sense of self-censorship still exists among Bhutanese journalists.

A pre-determined charge sheet

TP Mishra
-
26,644
What crime has Shanti Ram Acharya committed so that the Bhutanese authority sentenced him for seven-and-a- half year? Does the authority have any strong and authentic evidence to charge Acharya’s involvement in subversive activities? Was he provided with access to an independent lawyer to plea?

Shantiram Acharya 

Shantiram Acharya

The call for Acharya’s release continues despite the Druk authority’s attempt to conceal the facts regarding the High Court’s one-sided-and-politically motivated-order to sentence him for such a long time without any genuine reason.

On January 23, International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) called for the leniency for Acharya, 20, who was arrested by the Bhutanese security forces on January 16, 2007 at Tashilakha area on charges of being the member of underground outfit Communist Party of Bhutan. Showing worrisome at the High Court’s sentencing of journalist Acharya, the international media watchdog says “The IFJ urges Bhutan’s authorities to take a humanitarian view of the case of Acharya and review the harsh sentence imposed on him.” (Link to IFJ Statement) 

To note, the IFJ has also joined Association of Press Freedom Activists (APFA) Bhutan and other press freedom groups in calling on authorities to make public Acharya’s whereabouts and the conditions in which he is being held, and in urging a review in which Acharya is provided with access to an independent lawyer. (Click here for APFA Statement)
The coverage of news stories on sentencing Acharya by international media houses including the BBC world service reflects the fact that he is innocent and the authority’s decision is unfair. Ironically, none of the media bodies and house inside the country covered the plight of Acharya which have raised suspicion if the media are fairly working. In fact, all private and government media in Bhutan, until now has not changed their dogma to terming the dissident southern Bhutanese as anti-national or terrorists, undoubtedly the continued influences of the government on media.  (Download Report by BBC)
 
Interestingly, the Bhutan Chapter of South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA), upon which media groups in exile had hopes for the working in favor of media freedom, remains mute as if to mean there is complete free press in Bhutan and that Acharya is not a journalist. SAFMA’s aims at strengthening networking among media stakeholders, especially working journalists, to improve professional standards through journalist’s education, training and capacity building and promotion of press freedom is hereafter questionable. This is because it failed to raise voice against authority’s decision to sentence a journalist for seven-and-half-year without justifiable reason. (Click to link SAFMA’s covergae)
Acharya, who had been to Bhutan to meet his relatives, was charged for entering the country for carrying out terrorist activities. Arrested on January 16, 2007, Acharya was produced before the court for preliminary hearing only on March 16. This is against the rights of the detainee. It is obvious he faced tremendous and inhumanly torture to confess the charges. Besides, it also explores the veracity of Bhutan’s weaknesses to respect and safeguard the fundamental rights and allow freedom of movement and assembly to its citizens as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The High Court’s order reads, “The Court granted full opportunity and thoroughly considered the explanations made by the defendant concerning the guilty plea. He was given full opportunity to make all his submissions, which were given the utmost consideration. The Court awards seven years and six months imprisonment term in total to the defendant Shanti Ram Acharya, resident of Beldangi II, Sector D/1, Hut No.85, Jhapa, Nepal in accordance with §§ 127, 134, 329 and 330 of the Penal Code and § 211 of the Civil and Criminal Procedure Code from the day he was arrested for the charges against him that have been proven.”
Mother of Shantiram, sheds her tears appealing rights body for release of her son 

Mother of Shantiram, sheds her tears appealing rights body for release of her son

How can the Bhutanese court say that he was granted full opportunity to plea since the judiciary system in the country is still state-controlled? Undoubtedly, we can say that the basic norms to fair trail on the part of Acharya were a far cry since his relatives were not present, nor called by the authority, during the time of Acharya’s hearing on the court. Its definite Acharya failed to hire attorney for his defense for two reasons and these made him become the prey of Bhutanese regime. Bhutan does not have any independent attorneys to be hired by individual and lack of financial backup because he was produced at the court without the knowledge of his relatives and family members.
There are no any logical points to term Acharya a Maoist militant. The first of such reasons is; the Communist Party of Bhutan (CPB-MLM), issuing a press statement after his arrest, strongly refuted his affiliation to their party.  (Download CPB-MLM statement)
Secondly, his nature, in accordance with his family members seems he is rather a journalist, if not at all, but having a keen interest in journalism. He worked with The Bhutan Reporter (TBR) monthly for six months and was subsequently working at Jagaran fortnightly, a Nepali-language newspaper published by exiled Bhutanese. He is also the founding editor for Baal Aawaj (voice of children), a children-related wall newspaper which used to be published with the financial support from Lutheran World Federation.
Thirdly, a sentence from the court order reads “After his (Shanti Ram) brother came to know that he had joined the Bhutan Communist Party, their relation was strained, as his brother scolded him for joining BCP.” Shanti Ram’s brother Devi Charan, 38, however, defends this very strongly. “He (Shanti Ram) always used to read newspapers and sometimes I too used to find his news and write-ups in refugee-run newspapers. I believe he was just a new media practitioner”, he says, adding- “How our relation could be strained?”
The Kangaroo court of Bhutan to punish innocent journo 

The Kangaroo court of Bhutan to punish innocent journo

Ichha Poudel, the camp-based Associate Editor of the Bhutan News Service (BNS), informs that Shanti Ram’s mother Soma Woti, 60, could not react to his query due to long-possessed mental suffocation caused by son’s imprisonment inside cruel jails. “She continues dropping tears from her eyes and I turned myself helpless to seek her reaction”, says Poudel, adding that her health condition is gradually getting deteriorated due to tension after knowing about her son’s sentencing for seven-and-half-years.
Similarly, Devi Charan , elder brother of Shantiram, in an interview to BNS-run radio program Saranarthi Sarokar (Refugee Concern) at Nepal FM 91.8 in Kathmandu urges international rights groups for his early release. He says the authority’s decision of sentencing Shanti Ram for seven-and-half year was never a matter of ‘tolerance’ for his family. “We are barricaded from getting justice”, says Devi Charan, who immediately maintains that Shanti Ram was never affiliated to underground armed outfit. (Listen to Devi Charan)
The court order also claims that laws and charge sheets were read in Nepali language. However, in the Bhutanese court Nepali-language is never used in proceedings and there are no Nepali speaking attorneys. Most documents are prepared in Dzongkha, which many Nepali speaking Bhutanese do not understand. None of the evidence produced by the police speaks that Acharya had acted against Bhutan or Bhutan government. The only evidence that court rely upon was the statement by Acharya in police custody and subsequently repeating it at the court proceedings, which are questionable. The latest remarks by Police Chief Col. Kipchu Namgyal at the National Assembly session that Royal Bhutan Police cannot protect human rights and that a separate agency is required to look after the jail administrations vividly explains underlying truth about prevailing torture in Bhutanese jails in hands of the police officials.

Police charge sheet against Acharya says he was arrested for taking photograph of an outpost of Royal Bhutan Army with digital camera, which does not substantiate enough evidence to prove his guilt of acting against Bhutan. For sure, a journalist will take photos and this is his/her right. Not to an exception, it might have been a wrong place, an outpost of army, for taking the photos, thus, the Court’s order to sentence him for such a long time simply for taking photos, sounds illogical and immature decision.
It’s clear that Bhutanese media groups in exile will never give their pen a complete rest without the establishment of media freedom in Bhutan. Yet some answer-seeking queries are lying on the table of hot-debate: Is Shanti Ram suffering simply because he is a Nepali-ethnic Bhutanese? Is there a need for international rights groups to see if Bhutan, so claimed newest democracy, adheres by the norms of equality and equity for all ethnic groups?

Resettlement has gained momentum

TP Mishra
-
26,644
Resettlement has gained momentum

Nepal Resettlement Program Manager for International Organization for Migration (IOM), David Derthick, 52, is also the IOM Head of Sub-Office Damak. Derthick has worked with refugees since 1983 in Indonesia, The Philippines, Kenya and Nepal. After the signing of Memorandum of Understanding with the government of Nepal on September 3, 2007, IOM opened offices in Kathmandu and Damak. IOM began resettlement activities in both Kathmandu and Damak immediately after the Government of Nepal publicly announced support for third country resettlement of the exiled Bhutanese on November 2, 2007 in Beldangi-I and Goldhap camps. It has almost been one year since exiled Bhutanese began leaving for resettlement and UNHCR said more than 7000 have so far reached their new destinations. The process is likely to get further accelerated in 2009. David talked to T. P. Mishra of Bhutan News Service (BNS) on how the process is running at this hour. Excerpts:

BNS: How is Third Country Resettlement moving ahead?
Derthick: Very well.  The Government of Nepal publicly announced support for third-country resettlement in Beldangi I and Goldhap camps on November 2, 2007. Thereafter, many Bhutanese refugees submitted ‘Declarations of Interest’ forms for resettlement to the UNHCR.  The US, the largest country of resettlement, conducted a small selection mission in November-December 2007. Much larger US missions followed throughout 2008. In addition, selection missions from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark have interviewed and accepted cases. Currently, there are selection missions from the US and the Netherlands on site.  Within the past year, more than 60,000 Bhutanese refugees have applied for Third Country Resettlement, and more than 7,000 have departed. Right now, the departure level is 1,000 per month, and that will increase to more than 1,500 per month starting in April 2009.

BNS: Isn’t TCR getting a bit decelerated in accordance with the announcements made by the US government early on?
Derthick: There were many different figures thrown around a year ago. What I know is this: In 2007 there were fewer than 100 Bhutanese refugee resettlement departures from Nepal.  In 2008 the resettlement departure figure will exceed 8,000. In 2009 the resettlement figure should be 16,000-18,000. I don’t think that that’s a deceleration.

BNS: Only the US is seen as speeding up the process for resettlement.  What about other countries?
Derthick: All countries have their own refugee resettlement ceilings. All countries have their own post-selection protocols. Obviously, the US has the biggest resettlement program, but it’s noteworthy that selection missions from six other countries have interviewed Bhutanese refugees during the past four months. Several countries are deeply committed to providing third-country resettlement opportunities to Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.

BNS: Why does IOM deny publicizing statistical data of individuals who are already resettled?
Derthick: IOM will always make statistical information available. IOM will never reveal the names of individuals who have departed to the media – that’s confidential.

BNS: Can you let us know exact data how many have departed so far?
Derthick: As of 25 November 2008, 7,220 Bhutanese refugees have been resettled to the third countries: US (6,776), Australia (266), New Zealand (129), Norway (19), Netherlands (17) and Denmark (13).  But this number changes nearly every day.  IOM organizes departure flights 4-5 days per week.

BNS: There are a number of families split following TCR.  How do you remark on this?
Derthick: The UNHCR supports a philosophy of family unity. In general, UNHCR refers cases according to refugee hut. Resettlement countries have their own family case composition definitions. In general, this means that a refugee hut could be comprised of several different cases if there are unmarried adults living in that hut. It’s complicated; again, all countries have different rules regarding case composition. Every effort is made to ensure that all cross-linked cases resettle in the same location. Sometimes different cases within the same family do not depart at the same time, but every effort is made to ensure that all family members resettle at the same final destination town.

BNS: It’s learned that the US-DHS team flatly refuses further processing for those who have paid any donation or have any affiliation with organizations operating in the camps or have participated in demonstration in Bhutan in 1990. There are no families who haven’t paid such donations either back in Bhutan or inside the refugee camps.  Isn’t this another tactic to harass them?
Derthick: IOM is not in a position to comment on the resettlement acceptance criterion of the US or any other country. All countries have their own rules. IOM plays no part in the resettlement country’s acceptance/denial process. But what I can say is that the resettlement acceptance rate for Bhutanese refugees in Nepal, across all countries, is 98 percent, and that’s the highest acceptance rate I’ve ever heard of for any refugee population.

BNS: How would you remark on the infiltration of non-Bhutanese in the resettlement program?
Derthick: Wherever there is a refugee resettlement program, there will be attempts by some to infiltrate the registration process through substitutions or additions. That’s the history of all refugee resettlement projects. Free transport to/legal residence in one of the countries of resettlement is a highly prized dream for many people, and so it’s natural to expect some individuals to attempt to defraud the resettlement process of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal as well.

Having acknowledged that, I must say that the resettlement project for Bhutanese refugees in Nepal is the most “fraud free” resettlement project in which I’ve ever worked – and I’ve worked in a dozen.

The reason I’m confident about the genuineness of the population is two-fold: First, the Government of Nepal and UNHCR database is excellent. This database captured bio-data and pictures of all registered refugees two years ago – before third-country resettlement became a feasible durable solutions option. This documentation follows all cases throughout the process.  Second, all cases undergo several screening processes before departure: UNHCR interviews prior to third-country resettlement submission; IOM during case file preparation interviews prior to third-country interview; resettling country interviews; the Government of Nepal Exit Permit interview; IOM and Government of Nepal formalities at the time of departure. Overall, this is a very stringent screening process, and if a case is determined to have attempted fraud at any stage by substituting or adding unauthorized case members, it’s very likely that the case will be denied for resettlement.

BNS: Though it has not being a matter of concern for IOM, but don’t you think that the repatriation process of exiled Bhutanese is getting overshadowed following resettlement?
Derthick: Repatriation remains a strong focus of the UNHCR and the Core Working Group countries, but activities in this area are not as visible. Repatriation was the only focus for the past 17 years. There were 15 rounds of bi-lateral talks between Nepal and Bhutan regarding repatriation, but not one refugee repatriated as a result of these talks. Now, repatriation does not appear to be a feasible option for Bhutanese refugees in the near future. In contrast, resettlement has gained huge momentum over the past year. Sixty thousand exiled Bhutanese have applied for resettlement so far, 1,000 are departing every month and departure figure will rise in the future.

BNS: What happens to a case if, by chance, he/she wishes to return to a Nepal refugee camp after resettling to a third country?
Derthick: IOM does not play a role in the resettlement of refugees at final destination countries. Whether a former-Bhutanese refugee from Nepal could return to Nepal would depend upon the travel document restrictions of the country of resettlement and, also, the visa/immigration regulations of the Government of Nepal.

BNS: What factors actually motivates IOM to stop the whole resettlement process without reaching its target of resettling interested exiled Bhutanese?
Derthick: This entire process is driven by the desire of Bhutanese refugees to resettle.  IOM is committed to organizing various resettlement activities on behalf of the countries of resettlement. IOM is not in the business of persuading Bhutanese refugees to select the resettlement option. This is a personal, family decision. When all families have made that decision, IOM will organize the resettlement activities. When there are no more refugees undergoing the resettlement process, IOM will cease activities related to this project.

BNS: We have many cases of exiled Bhutanese who are yet to be resettled even when their process is completed some months back while others from the same lot are already settled?  Why this happens?
Derthick: Yes, I know exactly what you’re talking about. Sometimes cases apply for resettlement at the same time, and yet one proceeds much faster than another. And, when that happens, the case that proceeds slower often times feels that there’s unfairness in the system. For IOM – as with UNHCR and the countries of resettlement – every case is unique. Some proceed quickly because there are no “issues.”  Others proceed more slowly due to many factors: Case composition issues, the need for different cases within a family to travel at the same time, health concerns for one or more individuals on a case, marriages, births, deaths. All of the “issues” identified are reasons why one case becomes delayed.

My advice to all undergoing the Third-Country-Resettlement-Process is tell UNHCR and IOM immediately regarding health issues, pregnancies, births, deaths, family members deciding that they don’t want to resettle. The sooner that IOM and UNHCR know what’s happening within the family during the resettlement process the more effectively can they organize resettlement activities regarding the case. If families are not transparent to IOM and UNHCR regarding changes the process will be delayed. For example, if a case shows up for a Country Selection interview and one member of the family has married just prior to this interview without notification to IOM or UNHCR, it is likely that the case will not be allowed to interview. Additional preparation of the case will have to be conducted before a country of resettlement will interview the case – and that could take a long time.

BNS: It’s learned that most of the information is shared with exiled Bhutanese only during their cultural orientation classes. Isn’t there a possibility to let them know all things including the place/city where they are getting resettled soon their process starts?
Derthick: The response is two-fold: First, you’re right, IOM should do a better job in providing them better, more accurate information earlier-on in the process. IOM works on this every day. This is a big goal for IOM. IOM’s goal is not to try to encourage or convince any refugee cases to apply for resettlement, but rather to provide clear, objective information about resettlement to all refugees in all of the camps. Second, IOM cannot do any better than we’re presently doing regarding alerting Bhutanese refugees of their final destination. IOM gets this information when IOM receives a travel document from the government of resettlement – and that’s usually submitted to IOM 2-4 weeks before departure. Thereafter, IOM organizes the commercial air ticket. Immediately upon confirming commercial flight arrangements, IOM notifies Bhutanese refugees of the departure dates and final destinations, and IOM informs families of the departure formality activities.

1...269270271Page 270 of 271