by Oliverio Martin | Agreement between the governments of Great Britain and the small African country Rwanda for the deportation of asylum seekers arriving on British shores and airports, in English Rwanda asylum schemeOver time, the controversy has become one of the final blows to Boris Johnson’s cabinet, such was the participation of the British president, one of the last official visits to attend the summit. commonwealthWith excitement . is based in Kigalithe capital of RwandaLate last June, did not miss the opportunity to continue defending a project that has divided society United Kingdom and intends to question the right to asylum and asylum as we know it.
The news surfaced internationally in April this year. The British and Rwandan governments signed an agreement that included the African country accepting its territory to receive those who applied for political asylum in the United Kingdom, regardless of their origin. Yes, and the British government sends them for process. their asylum application and, regardless of the outcome of said application, give them the option to either settle in an African country or return to their country of origin, but without the option of returning to Great Britain.
The context in which the British Government has taken this decision is similar to the situation in which it was experienced different border regions of EuropeWithout further ado: African shores and . among Coast of the Canary Islands or Andalusia, Greek Islands, Southern Italy… In this case, thousands of people annually cross the channel that separates the coasts of northern France from southern England. The British government defends that the measure is intended to block the arrival of migrants to its shores, making it absolutely impossible for people to settle in its territory.
There is a lot at stake, nothing more than the old human right of asylum and asylum
It goes without saying that the wider political, religious and civil society sectors in the United Kingdom have opposed the measure for legal, ethical and ultimately humanitarian reasons. It would take a long time to express doubts about the guarantees that Rwanda can provide to asylum seekers, a country that has experienced remarkable economic progress in recent decades, with a poor respect for human rights and freedoms. The record continues. and political by Western standards, apart from a democracy of somewhat questionable quality in which its president Paul Kagame, in power since 2000, has been winning elections with percentages above 95% at times. All of the above may be acceptable to African reality, to which, in my opinion, it would be wrong to apply such Western standards, but the question is whether it can be considered valid for a country like the United Kingdom to do so. Partner to manage your flow? Migrant?
Benefits for the African part The agreements are clear: adequate economic aid and protection of a powerful country like Great Britain for integration into the international community, very poor international relations after a bloody civil war, including genocide in the nineties. An example of British support internationally, even joining the Commonwealth in 2009, we must remember that Rwanda has no colonial ties with the United Kingdom.
As mentioned above, a good part of British society has actually mobilized against the justice of that country, this June, the takeoff of the first flights with asylum seekers from London intending to land in Rwanda. Were. Controversy and new questions emerge: Will this measure eventually be implemented? And if so, will it be copied by other countries in the European space? In any case, we have to be vigilant because a lot is at stake, nothing more than the old human right like asylum and asylum.