To the east of the smaller Republic of the Congo (aka Congo-Brazzaville) lies the larger and much worse Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Zaïre, and before that the Congo Free State, and before that the Belgian Congo. Of all the shitholes of Africa, the DRC is arguably the shitholiest. See: Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe; Why Nations Fail, by James Robinson; All Things Must Fight to Live, by Brian Mealer, and many more.
To the east of the DRC lies the tiny republic of Rwanda, which in the 1990s was even worse. Africa's World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe analyses a bloodbath that swept across central Africal in the mis-1990s, ultimately leading to the deaths of some four million people. So bad was it that in 1996 some two million refugees - a third of Rwanda's population - fled to exile in Zaire. Believe it or not.
[Where are we going with this? I've been pretty patient. Ed.] OK, OK! I just wanted to explain the shrieks of horror and clutching of pearls that greeted this week's announcement by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson of his government's plan to deal with the steady stream of would-be asylum-seekers crossing the English Channel to seek refuge in Old Blighty.
In a speech delivered this morning at the Channel port of Dover, BoJo said "From today...anyone entering the UK illegally as well as those who have arrived illegally since January 1 may now be relocated to Rwanda."
Cazart! Send `em back to Africa! What a novel concept! Well, not really. For years now, pollsters in Britain [and the rest of Europe and North America! Ed.] have shown an ever-increasing anti-immigration backlash. Taking back control of the UK's borders was a major rallying cry of the Leave campaign in the 2016 referendum on leaving the European Union, and Mr Johnson’s pro-Brexit government has been under pressure for a perceived failure to adequately tackle the English Channel crossings.
Recent opinion polling conducted by Ipsos Mori suggests nearly two-thirds of Britons are unhappy with the government's handling of immigration. Of the 3206 people surveyed by the company on the issue in the first two months of this year, 59% said they were dissatisfied. More than half cited "not doing enough to stop Channel crossings" as a reason for their displeasure.
The details of the plan have yet to be confirmed, but the British Johnson noted the deal between London and Kigali [Rwanda's capital. Ed.] was "uncapped" and could potentially see Rwanda "resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead."
He claimed the scheme, which will cost over US$150,000,000, will save countless lives from human trafficking and disrupt the business model of people-smuggling gangs. In Kigali, "My good Mrs Patel" (the British Home Secretary), described the deal as a "global first" and said it will "change the way we collectively tackle illegal migration."
Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta said his country welcomes the partnership with the UK. He said Rwanda would offer "asylum seekers and migrants...legal pathways to residence", adding "better them than those damn Europeans!" [Ed., please check that quote. I only have one source.]
Now that the pseudo-conservative Brits have belled the cat, so to speak, one wonders if the liberal democratic governments of the other AABC countries will follow suit. Don't bet on it. Lifetime pct .978.
No comments:
Post a Comment