This week, the first group of migrants sent from the United Kingdom arrive in Kigali. They will arrive amid loud noises of protest in England. That noise will grow louder. In Rwanda the contrast could not be starker. They can expect warm reception from a friendly people, comfortable lodgings and a happy stay for as long as they wish. Of course, no one is under any illusion that they will want to stay long. But when they eventually leave, they will not regret their time here. Some will even have fond memories. At the moment, they don’t see it that way. Who can blame them? They have been fed false information intended to scare, which they are inclined to believe because their one aim is to get to England. Rwanda is a rather circuitous way of getting there, and for some, that may not even happen All they wish is to settle in Europe, particularly England. That is why they are prepared to go to any length, endure the most extreme conditions, the worst abuse as long as they can get there. It is the promised land. All the talk about safety, comfort and human rights, and so on, are not of primary concern. It’s England they want to go to. That’s all. The various groups opposed to the relocation to Rwanda, even if only temporarily, know this and exploit it to prevent that happening. And so they invent and spread horror stories about Rwanda which they know to be untrue. Take the question of safety which they raise. Rwanda has consistently been ranked very high on global safety and peace indices. Compatriots of many of the critics of the UK migration arrangement who come here as tourists or on other kind of business or have long term residence attest to the fact. It should not be an issue to worry about. Or concerns about the well-being of the LGBT community, that they will be denied basic services like medical care, they should not have any worry. It is simply unthinkable that that would happen. I do not know of any health facility in this country that requires patients to reveal their sexual orientation as a condition for being attended to. First, that would be discrimination. Rwandans have painful memories of discrimination in this country and elsewhere where they have been forced to live and have sworn never again to see it practiced here. Second, matters of sex between consenting adults– how they engage in them, their particular preferences or tastes - are a private affair. In any case, Rwandans generally do not peer too closely into other people’s affairs. On concerns for human rights, what is better than giving people the opportunity to live in dignity and safety, and another chance at a better life? If you need evidence for this, ask the many young Africans rescued from Libya and brought to Rwanda, or refugees from countries in the region who live here. I have actually heard some Rwandans comment that Burundian and Congolese refugees enjoy privileges locals do not have. Supporters of the right of migrants to enter the UK and their media allies know all the things they are saying about Rwanda not to be true. Yet they persist in saying them. Why? Clearly there must be other reasons. Maybe there is something in it for them for them to be willing to tell lies. As already noted, the migrants want, first and last, to get to England and settle there. True or not England is seen as the place most likely to give them a fair chance at a fairly good life. Don’t tell them about alternatives or deferred entry. Groups that want to keep the migrants where they are as they try to gain entry into England have their interests too. The groups range from climate change campaigners to charities, religious groups to anti-war activists and various hues of other campaigners on different issues Many of them have problems with how their government handles many issues, including that of asylum seekers. Somehow they all find a way of linking their issues with the UK government to Rwanda and make the country the villain. Each of them, however, has different interests they want to protect. These diverse interests find convergence in their opposition to the scheme to have migrants transferred to another country. Some charities and religious groups, for instance, depend on the presence of asylum ssekers for donations for their activities. Their misery must be visible to prick the collective conscience of the public and very often elicits support. A cadre of social workers has grown around the problems of asylum seekers. These provide services, sometimes free, but often paid for by the state or other organisations, from giving advice and counselling to finding accommodation and eventually job or educational placement. They have livelihoods to think about. There is also a big civil service sector that has grown up around the plight of migrants. Owners of hostels and guest houses that house migrants as the process to settle them into British life goes on stand to lose a vital source of income. As are lawyers who take up such cases. To be fair, there are some of these with genuine humanitarian concerns and wish to help. They can surely do that without vilifying others that wish to do the same. One must assume that everyone wants to help people in distress. The best way to do that is seeking a collective solution. It does not help to expend time and energy, and even resources on demonising some who wish to be of help. Doing so is certainly not charitable. The views expressed in this article are of the writer.
