Days before the first flight departed for Rwanda, its reluctant passengers stopped eating. Several inmates at Colnbrook immigration detention center, attached to London’s Heathrow airport, found themselves Hunger strike to protest British Government’s intentions to deport asylum seekers to African country Arrived in the UK on an irregular basis. “I see no reason why I should be transferred to an African country where I have no relatives or family,” the 20-year-old Syrian, who fled his country after refusing to join Bashar Assad’s army, told Al Jazeera. The ‘butcher’ of Damascus. “I will refuse to go, but only if the British government insists that I be deported to Kigali and Force me to get on a plane, I’ll take my own life” he warned helplessly after being included in the ticket for the first plane.
That flight never took off. The European Court of Human Rights – a body affiliated with the Council of Europe to which the UK still belongs – avoided this at the last minute with an injunction to temporarily sentence the seven asylum seekers in the passage. Most are of Middle Eastern and African descent. “This is not a final decision. Court didn’t say the model was illegal or to a third country. In the particular case of one of them, Nikolas Tan, an immigration law expert at the Danish Institute for Human Rights, said that the appeal cannot be transferred until the appeal has exhausted the way of British Justice. newspaper..
London did not bend his arm. signed in April Agreement with Rwanda to outsource some of its border managementis a rising trend among rich countries. In particular, processing asylum applications of those who come to the islands with the aim of obtaining refugee status. For an initial payment of £120m, Kigali will be responsible for accepting deportees, processing their applications and providing them with shelter if their protection as refugees is approved. The agreement, valid for the next five years, does not specify how many can be forcibly transferred To Rwanda, even though Boris Johnson said it could be “tens of thousands of people over the next few years”.
colonial echoes
Not surprisingly, the controversial plan created a spark. A wave of criticism from within and without from the United Kingdom. so much for Doubts about its legality when it comes ethical issues it proposes that people fleeing persecution and war be transferred to a country 6,500 kilometers away, where democratic guarantees are scarce and human rights violations are frequent. While Downing Street’s stated purpose is to deter irregular migration, the plan is to old colonial practices. “There is a huge power imbalance here. Basically, rich countries are transferring their obligations to countries in the global south,” says Lutz Oette, Professor of Humanitarian Law at the University of London (SOAS). “This is part of a long history of colonialism, economic inequalities and power imbalances. Rich countries should not be allowed to stray from their obligations with a checkbook coup.
But that’s what they’re doing more and more. By exporting toxic waste or garbage or sending migrants and asylum seekers to third parties to be “recycled” to Asia or Africa?countries. The end goal is the same, but the formulas change. United States of America was the first by doing internships abroad Thousands of Haitians and Cubans at the Guantanamo military base (Cuba) in the 1990s. Australia followed the deportation and detention of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers arriving on its shores in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Then came the deal European Union with Turkey Ankara’s reception of irregular migrants to the Greek islands or arrests of those trying to reach Italy’s shores via the Mediterranean. Israel also tried the formula by sending African refugees to Uganda and Rwanda.
questioned legality
Many of these programs are rights violations and abuses It has been included in the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) or the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), but so far it has not served to hinder outsourcing policies. “These countries are playing with the gray areas of the law. Asylum is a right, but international law does not give the right to choose which country to seek asylum in.“, says Professor Tan. And although the UK has promised to carry out an initial assessment for each individual on their territory to determine who can be sent to Rwanda, the risks abound, experts say.
this legislation prevents discrimination But one thing is certain, according to Professor Oette: “British policies tend to penalize those who come to the country by sea as opposed to other methods, resulting in difficulties in obtaining visas such as Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam and various African countries, which particularly affects these nationalities more”. The difficult issue is this principle: Prohibits sending refugees to countries where they may be victims of abuse or torture. While London claims that Rwanda is now a safe country hosting more than 120,000 refugees of various origins, human rights organizations have many doubts about it.
“The British plan is the subject of heated debate, but possibly illegal under international law. “That’s the consensus among experts,” says Professor Oette of the University of London. Developments in Denmark, which adopted a similar law last year to outsource asylum, are being followed closely. It only needs to sign a bilateral agreement with a third country before deportation proceedings can begin.
Source: Informacion
