Goodbye : Embarrassment International !

With the Bhutanese $ 2.3 million frozen deal in New York City finally beginning to melt down, the Dragon Kingdom's image as a repressive country appears to be shedding off, at least before the community of nations at the UN.

Finally, Bhutan's image as a repressive country is beginning to shed off, at least before the community of nations at the United Nations, New York City.

Press Reports say the New York City administration is prepared to sue members of the City Council if they continue to block the sale of a town house to the Kingdom of Bhutan.

Does this mean the Dragon Kingdom has stopped repressing Nepali immigrants? Or has her human rights records improved? Or has her reform measures been constructive, productive?

At least going by a recent write-up in the New York Post by David Seifman, Bhutan seems to have made some good impressions on a section of the U.S. elite. Seifman writes that Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N, have been supportive of Bhutan on the issue of the $2.3 million deal. The sale of the town house was first objected to in September 1998 by Councilman Stanley Michels who raised questions about the Dragon Kingdom's records on human rights.

Bhutan intends to house its Permanent UN Mission in the five-story town house located at 763 First Ave, across from the United Nations.

Councilman Michel: Will he side Bhutan ? Michel had objected to the sale of the town house on the ground that Bhutan's human rights records were poor. Seifman quotes him as saying the sale was stopped because Freedom House and other human- rights organizations reported Bhutan was repressing Nepali immigrants.

Bhutan's absence in the borough vote to refute the charges gave credibility to Michel's objections and the Manhattan Borough Board, comprised of council members and community board chairs, voted down the sale.

The Giuliani administration, who apparently nurtures little or no interest in human rights issue in a distant land, has finally been preparing to sue the members objecting the sale. The question being asked is whether the borough board has the authority to block the affairs of the city
administration. Even the executives of the United Nations Development Corp,the city's organ formed to help U.N. missions find space in the city, are ready to challenge the borough board's authority in federal court.

So what does this all imply? The frozen deal has been a major humiliation to Bhutan before the international community for some years now. Bhutan's inability to present its case to the borough board only added to the credibility of the charges of human rights abuses in that country. Now with the turn of events with this issue, which have little to do with developments in Bhutan at the moment, it is most likely that the Dragon Kingdom will receive a clean cheat from those who opposed the sale all these years.

Even Michel, who recently met Om Pradhan, Bhutan's Ambassador to the U.N, is giving a second thought. He is not sure if he will object the sale in the next borough meeting that will hopefully be attended by Bhutan as well as human rights groups. Seifman believes a compromise could be in the works, and going by Michel's remarks, it certainly appears to be so.

King Jigme Singhe Wanchuk's 1999 reforms, designed to impress the international community critical of the this nation's absolute regime and
its atrocities towards the ethnic Nepalis living in the South, have certainly helped alter Bhutans international image. Aside from the media
hype (that a king in a distant Shangri-La agrees to relinquish the throne if the Assembly wishes so!), even the likes of Holbrook have praised Bhutan's reforms move.

"This kingdom is making commendable progress," Holbrooke wrote in a May 22 letter. He also cited that the king had granted pardon to some 200 prisoners in 1999. He described the Bhutanese refugee issue as a "complex problem" and commended the Bhutanese official's active engagement in solving this problem.

In actuality, Bhutanese reforms do not amount to a sweeping change, but they have certainly opened up a new beginning in this landlocked country. Bhutanese establishment's desperate attempts at cultural homogenization in a land of diversity, its ghastly act of ethnic cleansing, especially in the South, and her apathy towards popular rule, democracy and greater freedom of the people should come to an end if the new beginning is to take place.

Bhutan is no longer an ancient land. With the re-installation of the satellite TV and the launch of an ISP, this nation has chosen to embrace the modern world where democracy, human rights and unity in diversity rule supreme. Bhutan's concern for identity in the community of nations is understandable, but this very concern has become the cause of discord with her landlocked neighbor Nepal who can alone understand well the agonies of another landlocked state.

Bhutan may not like it, but she has been desperately replaying some of the tunes that Nepal whistled during the last few decades in the name of national unity and identity: Nothing wrong doing that but it is ironic that Bhutan is treading a similar path although she professes she doesn't and wouldn't. King Wangchuk's Gross National Happiness drive is but a Bhutanese version of King Birendra's long-defunct Asiali Mapdanda, both propagate and aspire for happiness and well-being of their citizens. Bhutan's attempt at fighting the Nepali immigrants only reminds one of Nepal's attempts at fighting back the Indian immigrants in the late 80s. King Mahendra answered western parliamentary democracy with partyless Panchyat democracy, and King Wangchuk's love for partyless system is evidenced in his latest reforms.Ultimately, Bhutan, like Nepal, can harldy aviod the sweeping blaze of democracy. Neither can it afford to ignore re-adjusting its relations with Nepal, once a closest friend next-door.

Nepal may be a little bigger chunk of land on central Himalayas, but geopolitics puts both countries in a similar footing. Bhutan, a country
cautiously emerging from insolation, should be able to realize this.

The King's reform move have certainly impressed not just Holbrooke, but also the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees Chief Sadako Ogata, who visited Bhutan a couple of months ago. But human rights groups, including the Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) are still doubtful of the outcome.

The AI Report 2000 commended Bhutan's attempt at strengthening the limited legal framework of the country but the report also cites the limitations of the reforms, and explicitly makes mention of the continuing discrimination against its Nepali speaking population, continuing imprisonment of some 100 political prisoners, and Bhutan's reluctance to respond to AI's calls to ratify the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

And, what can be made of the European Union's recent outright expression of unhappines over the Dragon Kingdom's part in lingering the refugee crisis? This only reaffirms the fact that the Bhutanese picture is not as rosy. The refugee problem lingers on despite nine bilateral talks, the fate of the plus-100,000 refugees in Nepal remains in limbo, Chairman of Druk National Congress Mr.Rongthong Kuenley Dorji's extradition case continues in an Indian court, and ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan continue to be discriminated.

The Bhutanese dissidents, of course, are quick to criticize the reforms. But the most talked about South Asian political prisoner, released a year ago from a Bhutanese jail after a decade-long imprisonment, is nowhere to be heard of. Tek Nath Rijal's amazing silence all these months may convey that he endorses the Druk regime's 'political reforms' announced last January. But does he actually endorse them? Sources close to Rijal say he is in virtual confinement in Thimpu, and it is only lately that his wife has been able to join him there.

One thing is clear, that the world community is increasingly sympathetic to Bhutan provided it honestly implements reform measures. Bhutan could achieve what it has been delaying for years: seize the opportunity to prove she really cares not just to announce reforms but also to resolve pending issues and problems.

Two of Bhutan's major international problems at this time-- her security concerns emanating from Assamese rebels based in her jungles; and refugee deadlock with Nepal-- are indeed, excellent oppportunities in disguise for this country. Bhutan can act on these wisely thereby asserting her role as an independent country and showing the world that she is now mature enough to handle her affairs on her own. Her intenal problems-- ethnic discrimination, and cultural degradation-- will finally give way to freedom and justice for all.

Mr Adhikari is editor of Newslook Magazine.