The UK faces backlash for its plan to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda
A controversial deal between the UK and Rwanda to send migrants and asylum seekers to Rwanda has earned London much criticism, mostly from its opposition and the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), who are calling for its cancellation.
The agreement signed by the United Kingdom with Rwanda set off the alarms of the opposition, the United Nations and human rights organisations. The agreement provides that refugees entering the United Kingdom through the English Channel will be sent to Rwanda, 6400 kilometres away, for asylum and resettlement in that African country. In exchange for the reception of migrants, the government of Boris Johnson commits to an initial contribution of 157 million dollars for the integration of these people in the African nation.
The author of the agreement is the Minister of the Interior, Priti Patel, together with her Rwandan counterpart Vincent Biruta. Both officials rate the measure as bold and innovative and believe it provides legal, safe, organized and controlled means to improve people’s lives.
The declared goal of the British government is to regain border control after Brexit and to end the groups that traffic people through the English Channel. From Rwanda, they point out that the agreement allows them to improve their infrastructure and positions them as an efficient country capable of attracting foreign investment.
In 2021, 28,500 people who fled poverty and wars crossed the English Channel. So far in 2022, more than 6,000 refugees have crossed the canal. After the rejection of the Labour opposition, the British Prime Minister knows that the implementation of the agreement will be delayed due to the legal presentations he will have to face.
In addition to the internal dispute, the United Nations Refugee Agency is involved. UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner Gillian Triggs said that people fleeing wars, conflicts and persecution deserve compassion and empathy and refuse to be transported abroad as merchandise. The main leaders of the Anglican Church spoke in the same sense. To these concerns, there are also voices critical of Rwanda, for being a country that committed human rights violations and that was denounced on several occasions in the United Nations and by human rights organizations.
The international perspective on Rwandan President Paul Kagame has two lenses; some admire the economic growth, welfare and stability achieved by the country, without analyzing the means used to achieve it. Others consider unacceptable and unjustifiable the violations of human rights and freedoms imposed by their government, converted into a virtual one-party regime to achieve this result.