Botswana has made it clear that it will not be accepting a proposal from the United Kingdom to host asylum-seekers in its territory.
The decision comes in the wake of a controversial bill passed by the UK’s House of Lords, which would see migrants deported to Rwanda, a move that has been widely criticized by human rights activists and the United Nations.
Authorities in Botswana, led by Minister for Foreign Affairs Lemogang Kwape, have stated that they will not agree to host asylum-seekers without a clear understanding of the implications and the end game of such an arrangement.
This firm stance has been reinforced by a coalition of civil society organizations in Botswana, who have called on the government to distance itself from the UK’s proposal.
Kutlwano Relontle, program manager for the Botswana coalition, emphasized the importance of upholding international conventions on the treatment of asylum-seekers and ensuring that all those fleeing persecution are given equal protection.
The group pointed out the discrepancies in the treatment of asylum-seekers from different regions, highlighting the need for a more equitable approach.
The coalition also drew attention to the response to the conflict in Ukraine, where asylum-seekers were fast-tracked into the system and citizens were encouraged to host them.
Officials in the U.K. have expressed their determination to put an end to the influx of asylum-seekers arriving in small boats, primarily from Asia and Africa.
Jonathan Portes, a respected professor of economics and public policy in the U.K., raised concerns about the proposed Rwanda arrangement, emphasizing that it could lead to the rejection of deserving asylum-seekers.
Despite the urgency to address the small boats crisis due to its inherent dangers and unacceptability, there are doubts about the ethical implications of sending individuals with legitimate claims for refugee status to Rwanda.
Notably, Botswana and other countries have refrained from endorsing this controversial policy following its criticism by the United Nations and activists. Portes emphasized the unlikeliness of any other nation supporting this initiative, citing reputational and practical concerns.
Even Rwanda, despite the substantial financial incentives offered by the U.K., may be reconsidering their involvement in light of the policy’s implications.
Although the policy was initially introduced two years ago, its implementation was halted by a ruling from the U.K. Supreme Court deeming it unlawful.
With the recent passage of the bill, the U.K. is gearing up to commence deportations of asylum-seekers to Rwanda by mid-July. The ongoing debate and ethical considerations surrounding this issue emphasize the complexities inherent in addressing the global refugee crisis.
Discover more from Who Owns Africa
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You must be logged in to post a comment.