The United Kingdom has supposedly been accused of sending thousands of refugees across miles to the refugee camp in Rwanda, that’s about 4000 miles of travel just for a shelter, for about 140,000 people and this set of people are expected to start a new life in their new location – the life they tried to start in United Kingdom after fleeing from their homes. This situation has caused lots of controversial thoughts and questions. Most citizens say the action is an inhumane act – Why ship people who seek asylum in that manner? Would the action not have an effect on the country’s finances – considering the government is looking to get a one-way ticket, database and other needed support for 140,000, why not just retain the refugees and give them shelter?
Leaders of several organizations like Tim Hilton; CEO of Refugee Action and Bella Sankey; Director of Detention Agency argued that it is unfair for the government to ship away a large percentage of the most vulnerable people like commodities and products into another country as this act might create several unsafe gateways for other refugees. So much borders to cross, so many places to run from, these things might just open a channel for ambush, due to lack safety and create more space for human trafficking.
Perhaps, this takes some burden away from the United Kingdom government, but is it a wise and humane choice to make? Just turning away individuals without ensuring their safety. Rwanda itself is a nation with several crises – Political dramas, communities without basic infrastructures, lots of policies that might not be beneficial to the refugees. The Rwanda government must have overrated their capacity, in this case, it is only fair that they take time to attend to pressing issues in their communities and countries as large instead of forcefully expanding their capacity to receive 140,000 that the government can’t effectively watch after. Without intentions to under-play the country, it really feels like it would be too much to allow that much people into their nation – a couple of things to put into consideration are – Effectiveness in managing the numbers of people to be received, management of database and the effect of so much people on the Rwanda economy. According to the Rwanda government, they would be willing to take and screen people and those who qualify can stay in the camp. It means that not everyone who is flown into the camp as a refugee would be accepted to get shelter. Rwanda is saying there would be a thorough screening and the criteria would be as follows – updated personal data, multiple cross checked information, etc. if a refugee isn’t approved due to lack of data, such refugee is rejected at the Rwanda camp and sent off to another camp or tossed back and forth until they find a suitable camp; an action that might take forever.
It is very bold of Rwanda to open their borders; however, the action was not thought through by the governing body. Was security and comfort put into consideration? What is the plan to further sustain the action taken? It is enough to want to risk lives of 140,000 without certainty. It is important to note that the said camp is a “United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Camp. In five years, this camp stationed at Rwanda has received a large number of refugees and this might not be the time to keep at it. As mentioned earlier, there are lots of things to put into consideration if Rwanda is willing to expand its capacity and take in the refugees from the United Kingdom. For starters, building capacity and staff capacity, sustainable database and skill training for refugees accepted, economic benefits and management, etc.
Why has the United Kingdom Government considered this the next solution? Is it the next line of action because the Rwanda Government has opened up its camp or it is a more preferable option for other reasons? Not to forget that 6 years ago, 12 refugees were shot dead for protesting food rations in the camp. This act was protested against by the United Kingdom Government, despite this, the government is taking the risk of sending these numbers of people out there. Rwanda has a history of hostile treatment, medical negligence and several abuses. The United Kingdom Government might want to review the terms of this rescue and be certain it is the best decision. In this case, they must ask whether it is a good move to make for the sake of the individuals that are being exposed under this policy.
Comments