The Human Rights Blog

Elizabeth Hebert, M.A. Conflict and Dispute Resolution, University of Oregon

If you do a quick Google search about Bhutan, you may quickly discover that it has been rated as one of the world’s happiest countries. In 2006 they were chosen as the happiest Asian country and the 8th happiest country worldwide. Business Week notes, “The small Asian nation of Bhutan ranks eighth in the world, despite relatively low life expectancy, a literacy rate of just 47%, and a very low GDP per capita. Why? Researchers credit an unusually strong sense of national identity.”

However, this happiness and strong sense of national identity does not include the thousands of Bhutanese who were imprisoned, tortured, or forced to flee and who have been living in refugee camps in Nepal. Forced to leave Bhutan in the 1980s-1990s, groups of Nepali-speaking Bhutanese refugees have been living in limbo with uncertain futures.

History
Bhutan has many different ethnic groups, including the Lhotshampa, people of Nepali origin whose ancestors came to Bhutan in the 1890s as government contracts to cultivate Southern Bhutan farmland. The Lhotshampa stayed in Southern Bhutan and were given citizenship in 1958, which was later revoked in the 1980s under the guise that they were participating in anti-national movements. Tens of thousands of Southern Bhutanese were imprisoned, tortured, or fled the country. Some of them were arbitrarily expelled, while others fled in order to escape imprisonment. (See HRW “Last Hope, The Need for Durable Solutions for Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal and India” May 2007)
Although many fled to India, they were not allowed to set up permanent camps and therefore either stayed without documentation in India or moved to East Nepal, where the United Nations Higher Council for Refugees (UNHCR) established seven refugee camps. It is estimated that nearly 105,000 Bhutanese refugees were living in these camps in Nepal, which is approximately 1/6 of Bhutan’s actual population. (See “Bhutanese Refugees – A Story of Forgotten People”)

Bhutanese Refugee Journey:  From a Refugee Camp in Nepal to Freedom in Seattle

Resettlement
As of 2008, nearly half of these hundreds of thousands of Bhutanese refugees have been resettled to third countries, including the United States, Australia, Britain, and other European countries. Resettlement to a third country is considered to be one of three viable solutions for refugees, the other two being returning to their country of origin or settling in their second country (i.e. Nepal and India). In the beginning of 2011, the United States had resettled nearly 35,000 Bhutanese refugees and promised to resettle up to 60,000. However, nearly 71,000 Bhutanese are still awaiting resettlement in the camps in Nepal.

Although there has been inter-camp strife about whether refugees should resettle in a third country or wait for repatriation, many Bhutanese easily chose to resettle in hopes of a better future for their children and families. However, as Human Rights Watch points out, it is not everyone’s goal. “But it’s not everyone’s dream. For many still in the camps – for older refugees, in particular, who remember their lives in Bhutan and still mourn their losses – watching their compatriots leave has been a bitter experience. About 17,000 of the remaining refugees have not sought third country resettlement, many still holding out for repatriation.”

The fact that the United States and other countries have so generously welcomed the Bhutanese into their countries is indeed admirable. However, that should not overshadow the fact that the Bhutanese, wherever they are, have the right to return to their homeland.

Sources
Amnesty International: Bhutan Human Rights
Bhutanese Refugees: The Story of a Forgotten People
Business Week: The Happiest Countries
Human Rights Watch: Last Hope
Human Rights Watch: For Bhutan’s Refugee, There is No Place Like Home

Popularity: 5% [?]

Despite the Obama Administration’s failings and poor decisions in issues of and related to human rights this past year, much success has been made by the Obama Team in the advancement of the rights of indigenous individuals.  After a stream of initiatives aimed at promoting American Indian communities as well as the President’s December 8th signing of the Cobell v. Salazar settlement into law, President Obama himself delivered an encouraging announcement during the White House Tribal Nations Conference on December 16^th; that the United States now endorses the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), a measure that was previously rejected by the United States since its adoption in 2007.

Over 2 million American Indians from more than 560 tribes live in the United States.  While the plight of American Indians throughout the course of US history is by now universally known, the fact remains that these groups continue to suffer from disease, crime, poverty, domestic violence and substance abuse at rates much higher than the rest of the US population.  For example, according to think-tank Share the World’s Resources, a Native American in the United States is 600 times more likely to contract tuberculosis than the general population and 62% more likely to commit suicide than the general population.” (The State of the World’s Indigenous People, Jan. 15, 2010)  In fact, during his announcement, President Obama stated, “[w]e know that Native Americans die of illnesses like diabetes, pneumonia, flu — even tuberculosis — at far higher rates than the rest of the population.  Closing these gaps is not just a question of policy, it’s a question of our values.”

The plight of America’s Indians is certainly not unique, however, as indigenous people in countries throughout the world continue to suffer similar hardships; both from years of governmental abuse and systematic discrimination, as well as due to changes in our environment, such as rising ocean waters, drought, floods, and changing ecosystems.  For example, the Inuit people of the Arctic regions of Russia, Greenland, Canada and the US view climate change as an enormous impediment to their cultural survival, causing them to lose homes, access to work, and the ability to partake in traditional activities like hunting, which is closely linked to their unique cultural identity. (See Rethinking climate change from a human rights perspective, The Human Rights Blog, Nov. 16, 2009)

History of UNDRIP

Among the many human rights covenants and declarations to which the United States is not a part is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) a non-binding text adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007, which recognizes that indigenous people are equal to all other people and asserts their right to practice their customs and traditions freely.  Although UNDRIP, unlike a treaty, is not legally binding and thus does not carry the weight of international law, UNDRIP is nonetheless important because it provides guidelines for the fair treatment of indigenous peoples and prohibits discrimination against them.  The Declaration also expresses the hopes of indigenous groups and the strides they wish to achieve in the countries in which they live.  Most importantly, and perhaps most controversial in terms of the United States’ previous rejection of the UNDRIP is that the Declaration allows indigenous groups the right to remain distinct from the government in which they live; allowing them to pursue their own economic endeavors and social development.

When UNDRIP was adopted in 2007, 143 countries accepted the measure while four countries rejected it and eleven abstained.  Those that rejected the Declaration were Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.  However, President Obama’s recent endorsement of UNDRIP signals a change of US policy towards American Indians; that the Obama Administration recognizes that it is the tribal nations and not the federal government that best knows how to develop and manage their own tribal institutions.  Specifically, in his remarks during the opening of the 2009 Tribal Nations Conference and Interactive Discussion, President Obama said, “Washington can’t – and shouldn’t – dictate a policy agenda for Indian Country.  Tribal nations do better when they make their own decisions.”  (As a political aside, wouldn’t it be interesting if Obama shared these same sentiments in regards to states’ rights?)

In any case, though today’s announcement is an obvious positive step towards the advancement of American Indians and indigenous people throughout the world, the fact remains that this is still just an endorsement on the part of the Obama administration and not a formal acceptance of UNDRIP.  And, although we will all just have to wait and see if the Obama Administration ultimately follows through by formally adopting UNDRIP in 2011, I remain optimistic, as President Obama clearly stated that, “what matters far more than words, what matters far more than any resolutions or any declaration, are actions to match those words.”

Popularity: 3% [?]

One of the most pressing issues of today is climate change, the significant increase in Earth’s overall temperature and climate.Typically, climate change is considered an environmental issue, but during her visit to the Philippines last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Obama Administration joins the United Nations, and other world organizations in viewing climate change as both an environmental and human rights concern.

The results of climate change, which include rising ocean waters, drought, floods, and changing ecosystems restricts peoples’ access to the universally-recognized human rights of food, water, and adequate housing. Extreme climate conditions cause the spread and increased susceptibility to weather-related disease.Those who live in small island countries, women, and certain indigenous people are the most vulnerable groups.For example, the Inuit people of the Arctic regions of Russia, Greenland, Canada and the US, view climate change as an enormous impediment to their cultural survival. Dramatic changes in temperature has caused major shifts in their lands due to rapidly melting snow and ice, and has even resulted in the introduction of new animal species.Consequently, the Inuit people have lost homes, access to work, and the ability to partake in traditional activities like hunting, which is closely linked to their unique cultural identity.

In light of these issues, rethinking climate change from a human rights perspective seems to be a rightly-growing trend throughout the global community.For example, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights advocates a holistic approach to dealing with climate change, one that incorporates its human rights impact and the negative effects it has on societies around the world with the purely environmental concerns.This reasoning is based on the principle that human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated, as stated in the Vienna Declaration of Human Rights, which formally reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter in 1993.  

The UN Human Rights Council strengthened their approach this past March with the adoption of a resolution declaring that climate change acutely affects human rights, especially those whose cultural identities are intertwined with the environment.Discussion of climate change as a human rights issue will continue next month in Copenhagen when world leaders from over 40 countries meet for the greatly-anticipated United Nations Climate Change Conference.From December 7-18, representatives will hammer out a comprehensive international climate change agreement, using a draft negotiating text that will, for the first time, introduce the human rights aspect of climate change.

While most in the international community can agree that climate change is, at least, an environmental issue with human rights implications, others see climate change as a competing topic; one that may overshadow more “traditional” human rights issues. Others still, such as former President of Ireland and former UN Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, work to promote a “climate-justice approach,” placing human rights at the very center of the climate change debate.As Robinson wrote in her foreword for the report, Climate Change and Human Rights, “[t]he human rights framework reminds us that climate change is about suffering – about the human misery that results directly from the damage we are doing to nature… [I]f we build human rights criteria into our future planning, we will better understand who is at risk and how we should act to protect them.”

Certainly, when put in those terms, it is difficult to deny that human rights and climate change are, if nothing else, irrevocably linked.

Photo credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/christianrevivalnetwork

Popularity: 2% [?]