By Mark Govier, May 2012
According
to a document entitled ‘Memorandum’, issued by the Tibetan Refugee
Welfare Office (Kathmandu, 2011) ‘the population of Tibetan refugees in
Nepal stands at 13,500 … (but) 50% of the Tibetan refugees do not have a
Refugee Card…’ (1) This means they do not really exist, and stems from
a policy enacted by the Nepalese government in 1989 which saw the
issuing of such Refugee Cards ended. This meant, in effect, that
‘children born and brought up after 1989 and those who could not get
their RC before the said date are today undocumented people…’ (2) As the
document attests, even those with Refugee Cards, though they can remain
in Nepal legally, are often denied the right to participate in local
activities, and can face severe problems traveling to India, and other
countries. This goes as far as declining to re-issue new driving
licenses for RC holders. Further, the document states that ‘some
developed countries have expressed their desire for third country
resettlement project’ and there is an appeal to the Nepalese government
to grant exit permits. (3) But what does all this mean, if anything? Is
it just more cant, to obtain more support from various governments?
This
document fails to state the reasons for the introduction of such
repressive rules, making it appear as if they just somehow appeared, and
can somehow be made to disappear. This, of course, is pure nonsense. It
also fails to deal with what led the Tibetans to leave their own
occupied country that, care of the Communist Party of China, has been
decimated. This calls into question not simply the purpose of the
document, but also the mindset of those who created it. To know more, I
visited the document’s source, the Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office, in
Kathmandu, Nepal’s capital. This is housed in a large and somewhat
opulent series of buildings, by Nepalese standards, down a guarded and
gated lane. On my first visit, I was taken to the large office of a
senior official. He was reading a daily newspaper. He spoke to me
briefly, then forcibly escorted me from the building. I was unable to
have even take a casual look. I later saw him sitting in the back seat
of a large expensive late model four wheel drive, with a driver. On the
second occasion, I was again taken the senior official’s office. He
was again reading a daily newspaper. In came an Indian man who is known
as a ‘consultant’, though his actual position may be other than this.
While the official continued to read his newspaper, I was verbally
attacked by the ‘consultant’. I was told to mind my own business; told
that the Tibetan refugees were all happy in Nepal; that no one wanted to
leave Nepal, and so on. So why produce such a document? I was unable
to ask, and left this dubious ‘meeting’ somewhat intrigued about what
was actually going on. Is the Indian government actually behind the
Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office? Are various governments playing politics
with Tibetan refugees, and the matter of Tibet? Are ‘welfare’ and other
organizations receiving remuneration from various government sources,
as a result? Is Tibet a useful tool to attack the Chinese government
with, to keep up appearances, while doing as much business as possible
with China? And who really cares about Tibetan refugees, who seem to be
mere pawns in such games?
Such
matters are historically nothing new, of course. But it needs to be
said that the UK government, under successive regimes and leaders, has
engaged in a hollow public denunciation of China over Tibet, while at
the same time pushing as hard of possible for UK business and products
in China. The grim reality is that the UK has, for all the big
anti-Chinese, pro-Tibetan words of its governments, only 800 Tibetan
refugees resident in its borders. Some of these refugees have expressed
serious concerns about what has been going on. But they are frightened
to publicly say, in case the UK government makes things even tighter.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office declines to answer any reasonable
questions put to it about the actual number of refugees the UK receives.
It goes so far as to classify Tibetan refugees only as ‘Chinese
refugees’. And the reason is: the UK government wants as much business
as it can have with China. The rest is mere cant. Interestingly, the
Canadian government is planning to take 1,000 Tibetan refugees.
It
may seem reasonable to petition the government of Nepal, in some way or
other, to try to lift such embargoes, and to permit Tibetan refugees to
leave Nepal for other countries, or to remain as refugees in Tibet,
with real rights. It may also seem reasonable to publicly condemn the
government of Nepal for not so acting. However the reality is not so
simple. Nepal is a tiny landlocked mountainous nation wedged between
two vast superpowers, India and China. In the past, Nepal permitted the
American CIA to back Tibetan rebels operating from Mustang, a small
state that was part of Tibet, until the end of the 18th
century. It later permitted Tibetan refugees to pass through its
territory onto India, or to remain. However, such an action led to
threats from China against Nepal. China, in recent years, has been
offering and providing invaluable aid and technical assistance to Nepal
which this poor nation is most eager to have. The unfortunate reality is
that China has successfully placed further pressure on the government
of Nepal to stamp down harder on Tibetan refugees, and their children.
A part of this process has been the recent (and unpopular) banning of
public celebration of the Dalai Lama’s birthday by Tibetans, and the
putting down of public demonstrations against Chinese rule by Tibetans.
The influence of China has increased significantly since the end of the
Nepalese civil war in 2006. With the co-governance of Nepal by the
Nepalese Maoist Party, this influence can and will only grow. So what
can be done? Shall the refugees, especially those stuck in Nepal due to
the 1989 legislation, be left to their own devices, existing totally
outside of the law? Shall their children who have no legal status
whatsoever, live half lives? This matter is important, and needs to be
dealt with. The UK government needs to be petitioned, properly.
***
1. ‘Memorandum’, Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office, Kathmandu, 201, P 162. Ibid, P 16
3. Ibid, P 20.
