How Rwanda found itself in the crossfire of Britain’s political wars

Who could have imagined that when Rwanda signed an immigration deal with Britain, one intended to humanely sort the problem of illegal immigrants that make dangerous crossings to get to the United Kingdom to seek asylum there, Rwanda instead would end up suffering more abuse than a rented mule? Who could ever have thought that, for trying to find ways to end highly dangerous immigration patterns that result in untold deaths in deserts, seas, or in the dungeons of human traffickers, Rwanda would be vilified, its name dragged through more mud than a murram road after a downpour? And yet here we are, the country being called an unsafe, dangerous, hellhole of a place! Some have even been conjuring up images of Rwanda as a place where asylum seekers will be tortured, or even executed upon arrival. Seriously. This is what Rwanda has had to endure since April 2022, when the deal was inked in Kigali, leading up to Wednesday last week when the UK’s Supreme Court blocked it, on the grounds that the policy – conceived during the administration of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson – is unlawful. That, according to the court, supposedly is because Rwanda is “an unsafe place for asylum seekers to be housed.” The chief naysayers against the policy, as one will have observed, are mainly “leftist” media in Britain – of which publications like The Guardian and the Daily Mirror in London are the doyens – plus a phalanx of commentators as well as pressure groups such as Open Democracy, all aligned with what’s popularly known as “leftist” causes. Think for a moment about this insane situation, whereby the party – Rwanda – that’s willing to actually do something about an urgent problem (a problem which disproportionately affects Africans) is the one that gets utterly crucified. Hardly a month passes by without stories in international media of desperate Africans dying en masse while trying to get to Europe, either drowning in the Mediterranean when the flimsy, overcrowded rubber dinghies they are in capsize, or when they perish from dehydration and heat exposure in the Sahara. Or even getting murdered by either by their own traffickers, or sadistic guards in detention centers in north African countries. Before a would-be migrant gets anywhere, they will have to deal with criminal, human trafficking gangs whom they pay upfront on the understanding they will get them to the shores of Europe. Afterwards however, the gangs will have the power of life or death over their clients. If you want to get an idea about the horrors involved in the human-trafficking business, take some time to read this lengthy article published on the BBC’s website in 2019. These are terrible things, and they only are the tip of the iceberg. People that find themselves in these hell-on-earth situations will have fled their countries for any number of reasons, mainly conflicts and other forms of political violence and, overwhelmingly, economic hardship. Their stories of dehumanization; of their being deprived of all human dignity, are what got Rwanda involved with the UK, to come up with solutions. And to fashion a blueprint that others could follow. But then, to Rwanda’s shock especially, the two governments were hit by instantaneous, vicious backlash, from Britain’s opposition Labor Party and its media allies, and all other leftist organizations. Together these have done their best to turn Rwanda into a boogeyman; the kind that one uses to silence, or hammer into compliance those that might have different views on issues. Even before the ink was dry on the deal The Guardian trotted out the following comment: “The (Conservative) government’s plan to force people seeking refuge in the UK to leave with a one-way ticket to Rwanda has surprised many, and has been condemned as cruel and unworkable.” But the policy said nothing about “one-way” tickets – at least not in the signed agreement. Once in Rwanda asylum seekers’ claims would be processed on individual basis, and, still on individual merit, one could be resettled to third countries, even back to the UK itself. In fact, any good faith commentator would point out that something similar already is happening with refugees that have been relocated from detention centers in Libya, to Gashora refugee reception center in Bugesera. This was under an initiative born in partnership between Rwanda, and UNHCR, the UN agency for refugees, as well as the African Union, and it has turned out to be a humanitarian success, according to UNHCR itself. So far 1,796 refugees, formerly would-be asylum seekers that paid people smugglers only to get stuck in Libya, detained in conditions of utmost brutality, have been flown to Rwanda since September 2019. Collectively (when refugees from all camps and not only Gashora are factored in), at least 30,000 refugees have been resettled, to North America, Europe, and other places like Australia, since 2010, says the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Is this what British commentators mean when they say the Rwanda-UK asylum plan is “cruel and unworkable?” The fact is, very few of them are interested in the truth, or anything that contradicts their narrative. In the no-holds-barred political culture of the United Kingdom, that is more so where hot button political issues, like immigration, are concerned. Any member of Labor; any of its leftist allies would rather touch a live wire than allow something like the immigration deal work, which would mean handing the Tories a win! They will concoct any slander, any smear, any outrightly false statement to make it fail. Rwanda was, in the words of Trevor Noah – a comedic genius that’s second to none for trenchant commentary – only trying to do something nice, and now everyone is talking s#*t about them! So true brother Trevor!

Opinions

How Rwanda found itself in the crossfire of Britain’s political wars