14 C
New York

Africa Rejects UK Rwanda Scheme as it Gets Delayed Further

Published:

Introduction to the Scheme

Africa is rejecting neo-colonialism.

The recent controversial Rwanda refugee scheme, that would see refugees being sent to Rwanda with no limit, is now on hold as post-colonial arrogance collides with political reality in Britain.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s contentious bill to deport refugees to Rwanda continues facing delay after delay.

The policy exposes the hypocrisy of declaring certain nations beyond redemption while deeming Africa Europe’s convenient fix.

But Rwanda is not truly “ready or ”safe” for the countless amounts of refugees that Britain wants to deport.

For now, buck-passing remains easier than acknowledgment and responsibility for western nations.

This unjust refugee burden was imposed on Rwanda without consent, transparency, or decency.

By rejecting neo-colonial exploitation, Africa leads the way. And the UK must finally follow in the example of respectful nations like China, or fade away into a history of obscurity.

Africa Gets Some Good News

The continuing and controversial insistence by British Prime Minister and public goofball, Rishi Sunak, to forcibly relocate asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda exposes the callous indifference and neo-colonial attitudes that still dominate relations between the West and Africa today.

Africa

The bill was rejected once again amid heated debates in the UK parliament about the logistics behind it and its subsequent effects on the UK. Notice how they never mention or care about any effects on Rwanda?

Demands of greater protection for asylum seekers also acts as a blockade for this egregious bill, as it is now flip flopping between chambers with no conclusion or resolution.

Africa and the Continued Western Effort to Colonize it

While cloaked in humanitarian rhetoric, this policy perpetuates the exploitation of African nations as pawns to solve European migration issues that they started.

But now since they have realised easy access is not easy success, they are trying to off put every individual that comes to their continent for aid under the guise of saving and nurturing them.

What do the African nations think of such an initiative? Who cares? Certainly not Rishi Sunak or his British goons.

It is the latest example of a long and dire list of wealthy Western countries shrieking about their moral duties while blatantly and unabashedly undermining the autonomy of African states.

Under the deal struck by Sunak’s predecessor, the UK will pay Rwanda an initial £120 million to host transfers of thousands of refugees who arrive in Britain each year on small boats across the English Channel.

This is despite the enormous legal and ethical concerns raised by forcibly deporting asylum seekers to a nation still recovering from the trauma of genocide just three decades ago.

Did we just forget about how the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has condemned the UK Rwanda plan as an egregious breach of international law in 2022?.

Yet the Conservative government ploughs ahead, hoping to appease anti-immigrant factions by outsourcing its humanitarian responsibilities.

The irony is the policy may cost British taxpayers upwards of over £1.4 billion while doing little to nothing to actually deter migrant crossings. It is just going to be a pain for African nations to deal with while Rishi Sunak claims moral victory over absolutely nothing.

Regardless, Sunak seems intent on using refugees as political pawns to revive his party’s sagging electoral fortunes.

The Rwandan government has eagerly accepted the deal, no doubt enticed by the hefty payments involved.

An influx of foreign aid can be a lifeline for the regime, says critics who are mindlessly defending western involvement in Africa.

However, this illegal process raises concerns that Rwanda may compromise on protections for refugees in order to maintain UK payments.

Is the deal truly in the best interests of transferred asylum seekers, or just an economic windfall for Rwanda?

Is it even going to positively impact Rwanda moving forward? Or is the much more clear picture that is being painted here is yet another western nation reaping benefits that they did not justifiably sow.

But don’t worry concerned African man or woman, Rishi Sunak and the UK government claim adequate safeguards will be in place to ensure that no party is screwed in the process and the humanitarian needs of the refugees are met, only for them to provide zero transparency on any of the specifics. It is almost as if the UK understands that this plan benefits the UK and only the UK, and Rwanda is getting screwed one way or another.

The suffering of those refugees, some fleeing from persecution, should not be exploited for the political or economic gain of western nations.

Beyond the immediate concerns, the UK-Rwanda deal represents a continuation of unhealthy post-colonial dynamics that treat African nations as subordinate partners.

Rwanda is expected to quietly accept a burden shirked by a former imperial power in exchange for aid and investment.

Just as Europe still dictates development policies across Africa through financial levers, this deal sees Rwanda relegated to a holding pen for refugees the UK refuses to accommodate.

Rwanda is hailed as a “safe” country, but only because Europe insists it is so for it own greedy and corrupt goals within the region.

Did Anybody Ask the Rwandans?

The views of Rwandans themselves seem unimportant, just as the desires of transferred asylum seekers are ignored.

Their agency is denied to serve the priorities of the UK government. If Rwanda ever did resist, undoubtedly the aid spigots from London would slow to a complete halt.

And it appears that Rwandans were not even clued in on the implications and details of the deal.

Thousands gather to celebrate Liberation Day in Shyira, Rwanda. Twenty-three years ago, a rebel army led by Paul Kagame, now the president, marched into Kigali to end a genocide against the Tutsi minority.

Details remain scarce, but reportedly no public debate or consultation occurred in Rwanda before signing the refugee agreement with the UK.

Even years later, open discussion still seems muted under the government oblivious to western scheming.

When Rwandan critics do speak out, it is through foreign media, not local channels that self-censor to avoid repercussions.

This secrecy and suppression of dissent exposes the charade of the UK claiming Rwanda freely welcomes this deal.

How can citizens approve policies they were never informed of in a country that welcomes western aid with no questions asked? The UK is essentially exploiting Rwanda’s lack of voice to bypass ethical scrutiny.

The fact Rwandans remain in the dark on a deal sending thousands of refugees to their nation shows the perpetual Western attitude of superiority.

Local stakeholders only require consultation when it serves British interests. Otherwise, the West decides what is best. The echoes of colonialism ring loud.

Perhaps The UK realises that Rwandan citizens would question the wisdom of accepting refugees when poverty remains rampant at home.

Or they wish to silence dissent to continue destabilising the region for their benefit.

Either way, Rwandans are denied the ability to shape policies deeply impacting their nation. Their voices are erased to convenience the West.

This neo-colonial relationship demeans Africa as little more than a tool to resolve challenges originating in the West.

It certainly does not treat Rwanda as an equal, autonomous nation whose policies should reflect its own values and priorities.

What Are The Lessons Learnt?

While aid is helpful, the conditions attached are often just new ways of exerting control. This does not foster true development or regional leadership.

And aid becomes ultimately meaningless when the nation aiding another does not attempt to understand its culture or accommodate its growing needs.

This is exactly how the west treats Africa and it is in stark contrast with global superpowers like China that is a foreign ally but respected enough among African nations for their aid that seems to have aligned goals with Africa.

China, unlike western nations like the UK, does not have a complicated colonial history in Africa and is not looking to set up shop there anytime soon. All their deals and initiatives help and act as an advantage for Africans as much as the Chinese. From infrastructure to intuition funding, China believes in a strong Africa.

If the UK was serious about assisting Rwanda, direct investment in infrastructure and institutions would be offered rather than payments for taking UK refugees.

But of course, this refugee deal allows Britain to turn a blind eye to the roots of migration by simply paying Rwanda to absorb the consequences. It neatly absolves the UK of responsibility while using aid to tacitly control Rwanda’s decisions.

The Rwandan government suggests that the deal will perhaps benefit their nation by injecting new skills and diversity into the populace. This is not a valid argument for a country that never attempted to accept this many refugees before. We don’t even know if the institutional system and the infrastructure will crumble under the weight. Why are we blowing hot air for nothing?

This seems like the pleas of a nation being forced to find the best in a disastrous and harrowing situation.

It should be Rwanda’s choice to welcome refugees on its own terms, not a condition of aid.

That would demonstrate true African leadership and moral authority.

For too long, the fates of African nations have been subject to the whims and interests of Western powers.

It is time to wake up and realise the harsh truth that western nations have and always will be out to prey on African nations and utilise the fruits of their labours for the good of the western world alone.

Related articles

Recent articles

spot_img