Refugees Should not be Treated as “Goods”


Recently, the United Kingdom has concluded an agreement on migrants with Rwanda.


According to the agreement, illegal migrants coming in through the English Channel would be “relocated” to Rwanda rather than the UK when they go through the procedures of deliberation by the British government. When they fail to pass them, they will be subject to forcible repatriation.


No sooner the agreement was announced than the country was in full cry, not to mention the international society.


The Office of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) lamented that the UK treated refugees as “goods” for export as it had concluded the agreement in return for making an investment of £120 million in the economic development and refugee support of Rwanda.


Commissioner for Human Rights of Council of Europe warned that this agreement would pose a serious threat to the international system of protecting refugees.


The leader of the Labor Party ridiculed that Prime Minister Johnson is using the art of disguise to divert the attention focused on him due to the scandal of holding a drinking bout during the pandemic prevention period. The Archbishop of the Church of England criticized it saying that sending back refugees to Rwanda, who come to the UK seeking a way to make a living, is a serious unethical issue.


The international media and human rights experts are also making a stinging attack on the UK saying that the scheme by the UK this time shows that the rich and big countries are justified in using money to expelling migrants at will to another country.


The UK’s act constitutes a violation of the 1951 convention on the status of refugees, and it is an inhumane one intentionally refusing and evading the international duties to protect refugees and migrants. It is only natural that the international society could hardly refrain from expressing indignation at this.


The above facts prove that the “humanitarianism” and “safeguarding of human rights” chanted so much by the UK are nothing more than hypocrisy.


The UK would be well-advised to be sensitive to the angry eyes of the world people.