UK’s Bid to Export Some Refugees to Rwanda, ‘All Wrong’, Says UN Refugee Chief

UNITED NATIONS, 20 Jun 2022

UN News - TRANSCEND Media Service

13 Jun 2022 – UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, today dismissed the British government’s proposal to process United Kingdom-bound asylum seekers in Rwanda, describing the offshore deal between the two countries announced in April, as “all wrong”.

A boy walks through a migrant camp in Calais, northern France. Many asylum seekers attempt the sea crossing to England from the French coast. UNICEF/Geai

The development comes as senior judges in the UK ruled that the Government’s first flight taking asylum seekers to the African nation, could go ahead.

A High Court judge refused a temporary injunction on Friday to halt the first flight, due to take place on Tuesday, and on Monday, according to news reports, the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

A full legal hearing on the controversial policy is reportedly due to take place next month.

“On Rwanda, I think we’ve been so clear over the last few weeks that we believe that this is all wrong, for so many different reasons,” UNHCR chief Mr. Grandi continued.

International convention

Underscoring that the UK is a signatory to the International Convention on Refugees, the High Commissioner maintained that trying to “export” the responsibilities that this entailed, “runs contrary to any notion of responsibility and international responsibility-sharing”.

Rwanda had a strong history in welcoming and processing tens of thousands of Congolese and Burundian refugees in the past, Mr. Grandi continued, insisting that the country did not have the capacity or infrastructure to carry out the refugee status assessments that were required on a case-by-case basis.

Irresponsible

“If it were the other way around, maybe we could discuss, but here, we are talking about a country (the UK) with structures that is exporting its responsibility to another country, Rwanda.”

Speaking in Geneva, the High Commissioner also dismissed the UK Government’s assertion that the policy’s aim was “to save people” from dangerous boat journeys across the English Channel, from the coast of mainland Europe.

“I mean, saving people from dangerous journeys is great, is absolutely great,” Mr. Grandi said, “but is that the right way to do it? Is that the real motivation for this deal to happen? I don’t think so.”

Urging greater communication between the UK and French governments on the issue, since the majority of refugees likely to be impacted came via France, the High Commissioner noted that France also had the structures in place, to help asylum-seekers.

When the policy was announced, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that the $160 million scheme would “save countless lives” of migrants who often put themselves in the hands of illegal people traffickers.

Legal avenues

Mr. Grandi conceded that although the situation was complicated, many legal avenues nonetheless exist for refugees and asylum-seekers to join family members already in the UK and EU countries.

All of this needs to be looked at bilaterally between the UK and respective EU countries; we have made ourselves available many times to provide advice; that’s the way to do it,” Mr. Grandi said.

Go to Original – news.un.org


Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Share this article:


DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


There are no comments so far.

Join the discussion!

We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.

*

code

Note: we try to save your comment also when there are technical problems or a mistake in the Captcha. Still, for long comments we recommend that you copy them somewhere else as a backup before you submit them.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.