DOUBLE JEOPARDY:

Tibetan Refugees'Flight Through Nepal

June 1999

This paper was written by USCR senior policy analyst Hiram A. Ruiz. Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli,USCR intern, also contributed to the writing of the report. It was edited by USCR director of programsand publications, Virginia Hamilton, and produced by Koula Papanicolas.

This paper was first issued in draft form in February 1999. It was distributed to attendees at acongressional hearing on human rights in Tibet.

We are grateful to the Chastain Foundation for its support of this project.

U.S. Committee for Refugees1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NWSuite 200Washington, DC 20036

Tel: (202)347-3507Fax: (202 347-3418E-mail <irsa-uscr.org>Website: www.refugees.org

@ 1999 Immigration and Refugee Services of America

PREFACE

I left Tibet because I am a human being but I did not have human rights. We had to do what the Chinesetold us to do.... The most heart-breaking thing was that the Chinese would not allow us to keep photos ofHis Holiness [the Dalai Lama] in our homes. I saw the Chinese arrest monks because they kept photos ofthe Dalai Lama in their rooms, or because they wouldn't agree to re-education. In my own village, a youngmonk committed suicide-he jumped off a bridge-because the Chinese were going to take him for re-education.... I want to tell this to the world: Tibetans are suffering.

Tibetan refugee in Nepal interviewed by USCR in August 1998.

The U.S. Committee for Refugees (USCR) hasfollowed the situation of Tibetan asylum seekersclosely since 1990, the first year in which largenumbers of Tibetans were able to flee throughNepal to India after almost three decades duringwhich escape was virtually impossible. Since1990, some 2,000 Tibetans per year have managedto flee Tibet, enter Nepal, reach Kathmandu, andcontinue on to India.

Many international human rights and Ti-bet-interest groups have focused and reported onconditions inside Tibet and on the Tibetan refugeesettlements in India. However, USCR has led inmonitoring and reporting on the difficulties Ti-betan refugees face entering and transiting throughNepal. Focusing on this little known and danger-ous phase of a Tibetan refugees' life is our contri-bution to the profusion of information that exists onthe plight of the Tibetan people.

USCR has visited Nepal three times, main-tained yearly contact with organizations in Nepalfamiliar with Tibetan asylum seekers, and haswritten several reports on the subject. USCR's firstvisit to Nepal was in 1990, when Tibetan refugeesfirst began fleeing in large numbers. We returnedto Nepal in 1992 because refugees continued toencounter serious difficulties there. We went backin 1998 to re-evaluate the situation. We also visitedTibet in 1990 to assess conditions there, andDharamsala, India, in 1996 to monitor the situationfor refugees and meet with Tibetan Administrationleaders. During that visit, we were granted aprivate interview with His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

(See Annex 1.)This paper, based on USCR's site visits,

particularly the most recent (August 1998), docu-ments the current situation of Tibetan refugeesseeking to transit through Nepal, and offers recom-mendations aimed at ensuring that their difficultjourney be as safe as possible. Below are the majorfindings on which this report is based:

I. In the past two years, the Nepalese authoritieshave taken positive, commendable steps thatincrease the likelihood that Tibetan refugeesentering Nepal through mountain passes reachKathmandu safely.

2. UNHCR and the international community haveencouraged and supported the Nepalese au-thorities' efforts.

3. The system still has serious cracks, however.Unfortunate and avoidable incidents continueto cause large number of refugees to suffer.

4. The Nepalese authorities have not taken suffi-cient measures to ensure that Tibetan refugeesseeking to enter Nepal through the main bordercrossing at Kodari receive adequate protection.They have not adequately trained border guards,particularly at Kodari, on how to respond toTibetan asylum seekers.

5. Border guards continue to forcibly return someTibetans claiming to be refugees to the Chinese

U.S. Committee for Refugees1I

authorities, and the Nepalese authorities havenot adequately punished those who have physi-cally abused, robbed, or demanded bribes fromTibetan refugees.

6. Tibetan refugees who reach Kathmandu are well-attended at the transit center that the TibetanAdministration recently built with internationalassistance and which UNHCR helps support.

Fleeing Tibet

They beat me with an electric prod so thatI couldn't see anything and I couldn't talk. Theyhit me below the stomach. It was only in themorning that I regained consciousness, and Iwas bleeding from the lower part of my body.Myfriend told me what they had done to me. Allof the policemen had taken part in the rape.

Tibetan refugee woman who was detainedand raped by Chinese security forces whiletrying to escape Tibet. (Tibetan InformationNetwork, February 1999)

Every year, the Chinese arrest and detain hundredsof Tibetans seeking to flee. They sometimes physi-cally abuse the would-be refugees. Although thecase of the above young woman is unusual, it is byno means unique. In November 1998, the same yearthat Chinese soldiers raped that young woman,Chinese police fired at a group of Tibetans attempt-ing to flee to Nepal, killing a 15-year-old boy.

But evading the Chinese authorities is onlythe first hurdle in Tibetan refugees' flight to free-dom. To reach Nepal, Tibetans risk a perilousjourney over the Himalayan Mountains, the world'shighest. They often pay Tibetan guides exorbitantfees, sometimes six months' income, to lead them tothe Nepalese border. They walk for days, some-times weeks, over the rugged terrain. Many flee inwinter because the Chinese authorities patrol theborder less rigorously then.

Some refugees have frozen to death tryingto reach or cross the Nepalese border. For others,severe frostbite has meant the amputation of fingers,toes, and in some cases, one or both feet. TwoTibetan children, ages 14 and 8, and a nun, died ofcold and hunger in January 1997. They were caughtin a snowstorm as they crossed the Himalayas. A

13-year-old girl died while trying to cross the moun-tains in December 1996; a boy of the same age haddied in Kathmandu six weeks earlier due to severefrostbite suffered during the Himalayan crossing.

For many refugees, reaching Nepal meansreaching safety. Regrettably, for many others, thatis not the case. Getting safely from the Nepaleseborder to Kathmandu can be as difficult-and some-times as dangerous-as trying to escape Tibet itself.Between 1990 and 1998, Nepalese border guardsforcibly returned hundreds of Tibetan refugees tothe Chinese authorities. Countless others wererobbed, beaten, raped, and some killed, not only byNepalese border guards, but even by local people inNepal. According to the Tibet Information Net-work, in December 1996 a Tibetan refugee woman"was raped twelve times by a group of Nepalesemen led by a police officer." In January 1999, aNepalese driver raped a 17-year-old Tibetan girlwho was fleeing to India to become a nun.

Background

China invaded and occupied Tibet in 1949. Tibetanopposition to Chinese rule grew during the 1950s,and culminated in a major uprising in 1959. TheChinese military's response was brutal: they killedmore than 87,000 Tibetans. More than 100,000Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, Tibetans' spiri-tual and political leader, fled the country. Most,about 85,000, went to India; a smaller numberremained in Nepal. India permitted the Tibetans toestablish a number of refugee settlements through-out the country. They also permitted them to formtheir own Administration, which functions as aTibetan government-in-exile, based in the northerncity of Dharamsala.

Today, some 120,000 Tibetans are in In-dia and about 18,000 in Nepal. In recent years, theTibetan Administration has encouraged Tibetanswho go to India primarily to receive the blessing ofthe Dalai Lama or to study in Tibetan schools, toeventually return to Tibet. This is due to concernthat the increasing number of Tibetan refugeesliving in India might become a problem for theIndian authorities. The Tibetan Administration isalso concerned about its ability to care for thegrowing refugee population. Finally, it worriesthat the continuing exodus from Tibet will reducethe Tibetan population inside Tibet and strengthenthe Chinese authorities' hold on the country.

U.S. Committee for Refugees 2

"I am 17 years old. I lived in a nunnery for five years, from when I was 12 years old. There were170 nuns there. Earlier this year, Chinese soldiers came to the nunnery and told us that we had todenounce the Dalai Lama and not keep photos of him. They also said that they would only permit109 nuns to live there. Initially, all of the nuns said they would leave if they could not continue theirreligious life freely, but after discussions and consultations, many decided that it was best if theyremained. The Chinese forced those who refused to denounce the Dalai Lama to leave the nunnery.Some returned to their families, some went to live as hermits, some fled to India. I was one of the oneswho refused and was kicked out.

Three other nuns and I wanted to escape to India to be able to continue our religious life. Weattempted to escape in March [1998], but were arrested while we were still in Tibet and detained ata military checkpoint for ten days. Then we were taken to Zigatse, where we were put in prison forone month. After I was released, I went into hiding in Zigatse for a while. Then I went back to staywith my family. This was in May.

While I was at home, one of my sisters, who is also a nun, was released from prison. Sheand 14 other nuns had been arrested for taking part in a political demonstration at the Potala. She wasin jail for four years, and released in July [1998]. My sister encouraged me to flee.

I decided to flee with my sister's friend, a nun who had been in prison with her. My sisterwill probably escape later, after she has spent some time with the family and is stronger. I asked myrelatives for money to help pay a guide to take me to India. Now I will write to my parents and askthem to return to my relatives the money I borrowed.

Although I was sad to leave Tibet, I'm happy that I can now get a monastic education andmove freely, and that I will be able to have an audience with His Holiness [the Dalai Lama]. I wouldlike to return home someday, but I don't think that will be possible, because my family and I couldface problems."

Smiles of joy and relief after arriving safely in Kathmandu. Photo: USCRIHiram A. Ruiz

U.S. Committee for Refugees3

Most of the 18,000 Tibetan refugees livingpermanently in Nepal are the children and grand-children of Tibetan refugees who fled to Nepal in1959. Most are self-sufficient, and those in theTibetan carpet industry have bolstered Nepal'seconomy. However, Tibetan officials in Nepaltold USCR that a decline in demand for Tibetanrugs in the past few years has harmed the refu-gees' economic status. Another problem thatsome Tibetan refugees who live in Nepal face isdifficulty in obtaining travel documents fromNepalese officials.

Flight from Tibet, 1960-1990

During the 1960s and 70s, few refugees escapedTibet. During the 1980s, several hundred Tibetansmanaged to flee every year. In the late 1980s,growing anger and frustration over China's occupa-tion of Tibet, human rights abuses by the Chineseauthorities, and China's clampdown on Tibetans'religion and culture created a wave of pro-indepen-dence demonstrations in Tibet. The largest of these,in March 1989, ended in violence. The Chineseauthorities attacked the demonstrators, many ofwhom were Buddhist monks and nuns, killing be-tween 60 and 450 of them (estimates of the number

killed varied widely). Afterwards, China imposedmartial law in Tibet.

During the 14 months of martial law, flee-ing Tibet was harder because Tibetans needed spe-cial permits to travel even within Tibet. WhenChina lifted martial law in May 1990, escape waseasier. Within three months, the exodus of Tibetansbegan anew. However, political, ethnic, and reli-gious repression continued, and thousands of politi-cal prisoners, including many Buddhist monks andnuns, remained in detention.

Between August and December of 1990,more than 1,400 Tibetans fled to Nepal and reachedKathmandu. There, they received temporary assis-tance from the UN High Commissioner for Refu-gees (UNHCR) and local Tibetans before continu-ing to India.

On August 7of that year, Nepalese borderguards forcibly returned 43 Tibetan refugees, in-cluding 27 monks and 6 nuns, who had recently fledfrom Tibet into Nepal. Chinese authorities subse-quently jailed the refugees in Gutsa prison, Lhasa,Tibet. USCR wrote to the Nepalese governmentexpressing "profound concern" about the incident andcalling on the government to "move decisively toprevent further forced returns of refugees to a countrywhere their lives or freedom could be threatened."

The transit center for Tibetan refugees in Kathmandu. Photo: USCRIHiram A. Ruiz

U.S. Committee for Refugees 4

ALP

(The following is adapted from a report by the Tibet Information Network.)

On January 9, 1997, a group of 27 Tibetans left Lhasa hoping to escape Tibet. As with manysuch groups, they encountered more than their share of tragedy. Three of their party, a nun and twochildren, died of cold and hunger in the Himalayas. They hoped that once they reached Nepal, theywould be safe.

They were not. The Nepalese policemen who first spotted them took them to the police postat Chogsham. There, they ordered the Tibetans to remove all their clothes, and stole all of their moneyand belongings-a total of almost U.S.$ 1,000. According to the Tibet Information Network, thepolice "ordered [the refugees] to return to the pass and to re-enter Tibet." After persuading the policeto release them, the refugees "walked for three more days farther into Nepal before they werearrested, this time by police who followed the official procedure, which involves escorting theclaimants to Kathmandu and handing them over to the local branch of the UN High Commissionerfor Refugees."

From August to December 1990, even as1,400 Tibetans safely entered Nepal, the Nepaleseauthorities forcibly returned another 167 Tibetans.One Tibetan reportedly committed suicide beforehe could be handed over to the Chinese authorities.In November 1990, USCR issued a report, "TibetanRefugees: Still at Risk," based on an August sitevisit to the region. The report focused on the surgein new Tibetan refugee arrivals, and on the forcedreturn of other Tibetans. It noted the Nepalesegovernment's attempts to balance concerns aboutantagonizing China with Western pressure to per-mit Tibetan refugees to enter. Nepal's compromisehas been to permit Tibetan refugees to enter but notrecognize them as refugees or allow them to remainin Nepal.

Flight from Tibet, 1991-1997

During 1991 and 1992, more than 2,600 Tibetansreached Nepal and continued on to India. But forcedreturns also continued. During 1991, Nepal repatri-ated an estimated 30 Tibetans per month. Manyobservers believed that the Chinese authorities atthe border gave Nepalese border guards financialincentives for returning the Tibetans. Nepalesevillagers and so-called guides who promised to helpthe refugees also robbed them and handed them overto the border guards.

On January 14, 1992, USCR wrote to thegovernment of Nepal expressing concern aboutreports that a Tibetan had been killed on the borderby Nepalese police. That February, in response to

criticism about forced repatriation of and violenceagainst Tibetans, the Nepalese government said thatit had instructed border guards not to prevent genu-ine refugees from entering Nepal. In a second reporton Tibetan refugees in Nepal issued in March 1992,USCR disclosed how Tibetan refugees enteringNepal were still being "robbed, beaten, forciblyreturned to Tibet.....and again beaten and/or de-tained by the Chinese authorities."

In 1993, the number of Tibetan refugeeswho safely entered Nepal and continued to Indiamore than doubled, to some 5,000. Not all made it,however. In June 1993, Nepalese border guardsopened fire on a group of 60 Tibetan refugees, 51 ofwhom were monks and nuns. They killed one monkand injured several others in the group.

That same month, the International Cam-paign for Tibet released official documents smuggledout of Nepal by a former Nepalese guard demon-strating that Kathmandu was forcibly repatriatingTibetan refugees "as part of a systematic pattern andpractice....in cooperation with Chinese authorities."The documents contradicted Nepal's stated policyregarding Tibetans.

In March 1995, Nepal's newly elected com-munist prime minister visited China. According toindependent researcher Maura Moynihan, duringthe following months Nepal forcibly repatriated asmany as 300 Tibetans. In some cases, the Nepaleseauthorities detained the Tibetans in Kathmanduprisons before returning them to the border andhanding them over to the Chinese authorities.

(continued on page 7)

U.S. Committee for Refugees5

Yeshe (not his real name), a former novicemonk from Utsang province in central Tibet whofled to Nepal in August 1998, is only 16 years old.But looking at his face makes obvious how difficulthis young life has been. Yeshe first went to prisonin 1993, at age 11. He was a trainee monk in amonastery. During a festival at a temple inNorbulinga, he and two other monks, aged 19 and23, shouted "Tibet is a free country."

The three were imprisoned. In jail, Yeshewas beaten many times, and tortured. About 90percent of the prison's inmates were Tibetans, mostlypolitical prisoners, monks, and nuns. About tenpercent were Chinese, mostly common criminals.

Yeshe and the 19-year-old monk were re-Photo: USCRIHiram A. Ruiz leased 13 months later, in 1995. The 23-year-old

was given a six year term and remains in prison.When Yeshe was released, he couldn't enter another monastery because he had been branded a"political activist," so he returned to his home and worked in the fields.

While in prison, Yeshe had learned the Tibetan language from the monks imprisoned withhim. He decided that if he were free again he wanted a Tibetan education, and that to do so he wouldhave to go to India. He didn't try to leave for several years though, because of feelings of responsibilityfor his parents.

In early 1998, Yeshe decided to escape. He had saved some money. He first went to Lhasa,where he met up with a group of 23 people who had secured a guide to take them to Nepal. He leftthe money he was to pay the guide with friends in Lhasa. His plan was that once he reachedKathmandu, he would send them notice that he arrived, and they would give the money to the guide.

However, when his group neared the border, they were stopped by the Chinese authorities,sent back to Lhasa, and imprisoned there. In prison, the guards asked Yeshe why he had tried to escape.He said he wanted an education at a Tibetan government school in India. The guards called him areactionary and beat him-but not as badly as the guards in the first prison. After 20 days, theauthorities released him and the 23 others, but the guide remained in jail.

Yeshe stayed in Lhasa for a few days, then took off again for the border with many of thepeople he had tried to flee with before. They traveled the first day by bus, but afterward walked for20 days, the last six in Nepal. The guide left them after they entered Nepal, and they became lost whilelooking for the road. They did not encounter Nepalese border guards. One member of the group whohad been in India before was able to ask for help when they first reached a village. They were directedto a road where they split up and got onto buses to Kathmandu (they later learned later that the busdriver had overcharged them). In Kathmandu, they asked for directions to the Tibetan Center and gotthere by themselves.

When USCR interviewed Yeshe in Kathmandu, he still seemed numbed by his many harshexperiences. It was difficult to believe that this young man, this boy, is only 16-years-old. Yeshe wasgoing to remain in the transit center longer than most, so that the staff could provide him morecounseling and support.

Yeshe told USCR he was eager to get to India, though, so he could begin his education. "Ihave never been to school," he said. His long-held wish was soon to come true.

U.S. Committee for Refugees 6

(continued from page 7)The forced returns Moynihan documented

in 1995 included a group of 20, among them fivechildren ages 12 to 16, imprisoned for four days inKathmandu's Maharaj prison and forcibly repatri-ated on April 23; and a group of 33, including sixchildren ages 19 months to 13 years, also detainedat Maharaj and sent back on May 5. In August, aUNHCR protection officer secured the release of 1 8Tibetans being detained by Nepalese border guards.

The Chinese authorities imprisoned someof the Tibetans who were forcibly repatriated andconscripted others, including children, as hard la-borers to build a new railway. After their release,some of the Tibetans again fled to Nepal, where theywere able to recount their experiences. The fre-quency of forced returns appeared to diminish laterin 1995, which some observers attributed to a changein government in Nepal.

Despite the forced returns, some 1,300 Ti-betans managed to reach Nepal safely in 1995. Bythe end of that year, the Tibetan refugee populationin India had grown to some 123,000, while thenumber of Tibetans in Nepal remained some 18,000.

More than 2,000 Tibetans fled to Nepal in1996; another 2,100 fled in 1997, and 3,100 in 1998.Forced returns significantly declined. UNHCRconfirmed only 27 forced returns during 1997, al-though more than 20 others may have also beenreturned that year. In response to a December 1997USCR letter, the Nepalese embassy in Washington,D.C. denied reports of such returns.

In recent years, most of the newly arrivedrefugees have come from eastern Tibet, particularlythe provinces of Kham and Amdor. Many unac-companied children have been among the refugees.Their parents send them to India to learn the Tibetanlanguage and religion.

The Situation in 1998-I999

In 1998, the situation for many Tibetan refugeesarriving in Nepal improved. During a site visit toKathmandu in August 1998, USCR met with offi-cials from UNHCR, the Government of Nepal, andthe Tibetan Administration.

The Nepalese government's official policyremains that Tibetan refugees are illegal immi-grants. A Home Ministry official told USCR, "Ti-betans are Chinese citizens. All Chinese citizensmust have a passport and valid visa to enter Nepal."However, USCR did not receive any reports ofNepalese authorities interfering with Tibetans who

entered Nepal from the mountains without docu-mentation during 1998. They arranged for therefugees' transportation to the immigration centerin Kathmandu, where UNHCR interviewed them.Observers attributed this change to internationalpressure, UNHCR's efforts to educate Nepalese bor-der guards about refugees, the funding provided by theinternational community to ensure the smooth transitof Tibetans through Nepal, and to the understandingthat all Tibetan refugees must quickly depart Nepal.

Both Tibetan and UNHCR officials toldUSCR that they were very pleased with the im-proved situation. The head of the Tibetan office inKathmandu told USCR, "Currently, we are notexperiencing incidents of people being returned orhaving problems."

However, on September 15, one monthafter USCR's visit, a particularly disturbing inci-dent occurred involving Tibetan refugees who hadcrossed over the mountains. Nepalese police offic-ers encountered a group of some 52 Tibetan refu-gees, mostly monks, near the town of Katari. Thepolice attempted to inform the Tibetans that theywould take them to Kathmandu, but the Tibetans'guide misinterpreted the information. Several of theTibetans fled and others fought with the police. TheNepalese policemen fired their weapons, killing oneTibetan. Other Tibetans-and several police offic-ers-were also injured.

USCR wrote to UNHCR and Tibetan offi-cials in Kathmandu asking for clarification aboutthe event. They responded that the tragic incidentresulted from a misunderstanding. UNHCR said theincident appeared to have been "an unfortunateaccident that cannot be blamed entirely on thepolice." USCR then wrote to the Nepalese ambas-sador to Washington, "We understand that it wasnot the Nepalese authorities' intent to produce suchharm and that the Tibetans were uncooperative.However, we believe that the use of lethal force insuch circumstances is inappropriate, and, as thisincident proves, can have tragic consequences."

Another disturbing incident involving aTibetan refugee took place in January 1999. Ac-cording to the February 16 Tibet Information Net-work, a Nepalese guide raped a 17-year-old Tibetangirl whom he had transported to Nepal. The girl hadhoped to become a nun upon reaching India.

Problems at Kodari

Despite the improved situation since 1997 for Tibet(continued on page 9)

U.S. Committee for Refugees7

COMPNIOS ON H ROADT FREEDOM

Fifteen-year-oldKunga [names havebeen changed] fled Ti-bet because he "couldnot have a future as aBuddhist monk" there.Jawang, 66, wanted to

go to India so that hecould "receive theblessing of His Holi-ness [the Dalai Lama]before dying." Thisunlikely pair met dur-ing their flight fromTibet, made the peril-ous crossing over theHimalayas together, 7and were at the transit -ocenter in Kathmandu, Photo: USCRIHiram A Ruzfrom where they were due to depart for India-together.

Kunga is from Amdo. He had been living in a monastery 30 kilometers from his home townuntil the Chinese authorities told him he must leave. According to Kunga, the Chinese said thatno one under the age of 18 could be a monk. Instead of returning to his family, Kunga decidedto flee to India because he wanted to remain a monk and receive a Tibetan religious education.He did not tell his parents about his plan to leave because "they would worry about my travelingalone."

When he left the monastery, Kunga had almost no money. It took him one month to getfrom Amdo to Lhasa, walking and hitching rides whenever he could. He survived by begging forfood. He remained in Lhasa for two weeks. A man from his home region whom he met in Lhasagave him enough money to pay for a bus to Zigatse. From there, Kunga continued his journeytoward the border on foot. After two days, he reached Lhatse, where the Chinese authorities arrestedhim and put him in prison. Two weeks later, when he was taken for trial, Kunga managed to escapethrough an open window.

After his escape, Kunga walked all night, then sought refuge in a monastery for a day.There, he met Jawang, who was also heading to India. The two continued their journey togetheron foot and in three days reached the border. They waited until night and crossed over the bridgeto Kodari in the dark to avoid detection.

Jawang is also from Amdo. He is in the same monastic order as the Dalai Lama and livedin one of the oldest monasteries in Tibet. He traveled from Amdo to Lhasa by bus. A relativeaccompanied him to ensure that he arrived there safely.

From Lhasa, Jawang again traveled by bus to a town near the border. There, he soughtrefuge in the same monastery as Kunga. The two monks, one 66, the other 15, decided to test fatetogether.

When USCR met Jawang in Kathmandu, his thoughts were on his soon-to-be-realizeddream of receiving the Dalai Lama's blessing. After that, Jawang doesn't know whether he willreturn to Tibet or remain in India. "I will do whatever His Holiness decides," he told USCR.

U.S. Committee for Refugees 8

(continued from page 7)ans who enter Nepal over mountain passes, Tibetanasylum seekers who try to enter Nepal through theonly official border crossing, at Kodari, continue toexperience problems. Kodari is a small town on themain route between Tibet and Nepal. Travelerswith valid documents must use this crossing. Tibet-ans seeking to cross at Kodari without valid docu-ments are subject to deportation, although some arepermitted to enter. Some Tibetan asylum seekersattempt to enter through Kodari either because theyare not familiar with the regulations, or, more likely,they are attempting to avoid the dangerous moun-tain route. It is unclear how many Tibetans withoutvalid travel documents convinced Nepalese borderguards at Kodari to permit them to enter during 1998(presumably by paying sufficiently large bribes),but the guards did turn back at least 43 persons on 11separate occasions during 1998.

On seven occasions, the guards turned backonly one or two individuals, but four of the deporta-tions were of larger groups, including a group offour in early July, eleven on August 16, seven onSeptember 8, and ten on December 20. Most ofthose returned to the Chinese authorities were menin their twenties and thirties, but also returned werea sixty-year-old man, a ten-year-old boy, and anine-year-old girl. Many of those who were returned atKodari later successfully entered Nepal throughother routes.

When USCR visited Nepal in August 1998,a UNHCR official told us that he did not believe theforced returns were based on government policy,but were the result of actions by individual guards.In a February 1999 letter to USCR, UNHCR said,"The problem [at Kodari] is well known and isbrought to the attention of the central authorities inKathmandu frequently.... UNHCR staff make regu-lar visits to Kodari to address the issue."

New Transit Center

Once Tibetan refugees are brought to the immigra-tion office in Kathmandu, they are interviewed byUNHCR. UNHCR does not do a full refugee statusdetermination, but a screening to determine if theapplicant qualifies as a "person of concern" to theagency, a lower threshold than that required forrefugee status. UNHCR finds most Tibetans "ofconcern." Exceptions are primarily those who en-tered Nepal with valid travel documents from theChinese authorities and whom UNHCR presumesnot to be "fleeing." In 1998, UNHCR found 2,960of the 3,100 Tibetans who entered Nepal to bepersons "of concern."

Following the UNHCR interview, the refu-gees are transferred to a newly built, Tibetan-runtransit center in Kathmandu. The center, whichUSCR visited in August 1998, was built in part withU.S. government contributions. It is staffed byTibetans and is partially supported by UNHCR.During the week or so that the new arrivals remainat the center, they receive medical and psycho-social attention. USCR interviewed both staff of thecenter and many of the refugees staying there at thetime, and was impressed with the quality of care.

UNHCR provides all of the Tibetans ofconcern a stipend to help them cover their expensesin Kathmandu and to continue their journey to Indiaby bus. Transit center staff arrange for the buses andaccompany the refugees to the border. A Nepaleseimmigration officer also accompanies the refugeesto the border. The refugees all travel to Delhi, whereTibetan authorities based there determine where inIndia they should go (based on the refugees' reasonsfor going to India) and arrange for transportation tothe chosen destination.

U.S. Committee for Refugees9

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Nepalese authorities have taken commendable stepsto facilitate the safe passage of Tibetan refugeesthrough Nepal to India. Kathmandu does not wishto accept Tibetan asylum seekers in Nepal in orderto avoid complicating its relationship with China.USCR encourages Nepal to become a signatory tothe 1951 UN Refugee Convention and to imple-ment a less restrictive asylum policy, but wel-comes its actions to ensure fair and humane treat-ment forTibetan refugees who need tocross throughNepal to reach India.

UNHCR and the international communityhave also played a positive role by encouragingNepal to take these steps, through financial sup-port, and other contributions. The Tibetan Adminis-tration has also facilitated the process by seekingfunding for and building an excellent facility to carefor Tibetan refugees transiting through Kathmanduand ensuring the refugees' smooth onward travel toIndia. New Delhi's role also deserves commenda-tion. While USCR has been critical of some aspectsof India's policy toward refugees, there is no doubtthat its permitting Tibetan refugees to enter is asignificant humanitarian gesture.

However, there is no room for compla-cency. Many Tibetan refugees continue to fallthrough the cracks: Nepalese border guards con-tinue to forcibly return Tibetan refugees to theChinese authorities, and they continue to rob andsometimes beat Tibetan refugees (although withless frequency). During 1997 and 1998, observersconfirmed Nepal's refoulement of at least 70 Ti-betans. Other incidents resulting in violence con-tinue. A Nepalese policeman's killing of a Tibetanasylum seeker in September may not have beenintentional, but it could have been avoided. Tibetanrefugees usually do not speak Nepalese, are wary ofsoldiers, and may not understand the Nepalese au-thorities' intentions. The authorities should ensurethat soldiers patrolling the border area carry infor-mation written in Tibetan that explains to refugeesthat they will be taken to Kathmandu for process-ing and then to the Tibetan transit center.

For the Tibetans to trust them, Nepaleseborder guards and police must stop abusing Tibetanrefugees. Incidents such as that on January 9, 1997,in which Nepalese police detained and robbed 27newly arrived Tibetan refugees at Chogsham, un-dermine Tibetans' confidence that the Nepalese au-

thorities will indeed treat them fairly.

Recommendations

Regarding refugees entering Nepal over moun-tain passes:

I. The Nepalese authorities should continue toimplement the positive measures they haveput in place to enable Tibetan refugees toreach Kathmandu safely.

2. UNHCR and the international communityshould continue to encourage and supportthe Nepalese authorities' efforts.

3. The Nepalese authorities should refine thesystem to ensure that avoidable incidentssuch as those that led to the killing of arefugee in September do not recur. Specifi-cally, they should provide police and borderguards:- material written in Tibetan that explains to refu-

gees where they are being taken and why;- further training on how to respond should

refugees panic and flee.

4. Kathmandu should issue clear directives to allNepalese authorities in border areas that it willnot tolerate abuses against Tibetan refugees,and should punish police, border guards, orother officials who physically abuse, rob, ordemand bribes from Tibetan refugees.

Regarding Tibetan refugees seeking to enter atKodari:

5. The Nepalese authorities should not forciblyreturn to the Chinese authorities any Tibetansclaiming to be refugees. Rather, they should referthose individuals to UNHCR for screening.

6. The Nepalese authorities should take moredecisive action, including further training, toensure fair and humane treatment for Ti-betan refugees seeking to enter Nepal throughthe main border crossing at Kodari.

U.S. Committee for Refugees IO