From Slave Trade to Refugee Trade: British Approach to Africa and Africans
Last week, the 70th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II's accession to the throne was celebrated in the UK. When she became queen in February 1952, almost two dozen African countries were colonies in the British empire. As remembered with joy and respect today, the history of the British Empire and Queen Elizabeth’s 70-year-long reign contain the features to be proud of for the British. Yet, one cannot ignore the grave wrongdoings and malpractices. In this context, there is a connection between the slave trade, which continued until the early 1800s, the subsequent abolition, and the Johnson government's scheme to send refugees to Rwanda.
English traders, following the Portuguese, first reached the west coast of Africa in the mid-15th century. Even though the slave trade started almost simultaneously with the arrival of the Europeans on the continent, the interest and role of the British in this field emerged in the second half of the 17th century. Following the English civil war (1642-1651), King Charles II spent nine years in exile in France, Spain and the Netherlands, where he witnessed the wealth of local merchants accumulated by the slave trade. After returning to England and assuming the throne, he established, in 1663, a royal-chartered company that would engage in the slave trade between Africa and the American continent. From this date on, the British Empire became one of the principal actors that played a leading role in the enslavement of millions of Africans and shipment of them in the Atlantic until 1808.
However, circumstances began to change when a British judge made an anti-slavery ruling in 1772. About 400 people, known as the 'black poor of London', who were liberated in the following years of the verdict, were sent to Sierra Leone on a ship in 1787. At the forefront of this initiative were the human rights defenders of that time, who sincerely wanted to help the formerly enslaved people. By doing so, they also wanted to establish a center of Christianity and 'civilize' the 'black' continent. However, some others wanted to rid England of these unwanted people. As a matter of fact, the British government provided financial support for the relocation of black people to Sierra Leone. Most of the first settlers died from diseases and lack of shelter and food in a few years. Yet, the scheme continued with the resettlements of liberated Africans who had fought for the British in the American war of independence and had been relocated to Nova Scotia. Thanks to the efforts of British human rights defenders, the slave trade was banned throughout the British Empire in 1808. The ban was crucial in putting an end to the greatest human, social and economic catastrophe for African societies.
The transfer of slaves across the Atlantic was not the only population movement in the British Empire. Before and during the formal colonization period, the British and other European powers established settlements on the continent. There were several settlers’ colonies in South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe. Following the independence of African countries, the migration between the continent and the UK was reversed. The foundations of this change in direction were laid in 1948, with the British Nationality Act aiming to address labor shortages after the Second World War. The law granted those living in the colonies the right to travel and work in the UK as well as the prospect of British citizenship. When the employment gap was no longer an issue, the law was amended in the 1960s, substantially restricting the entry of ‘non-whites’ into the country. In fact, As seen in the Windrush scandal, hundreds of immigrants coming from the Commonwealth countries, by taking advantage of the citizenship law of 1948, were to be detained, deported and denied legal rights in the following decades without due legal processes.
After coming to power in 2010, the Conservative Party adopted increasingly harsh anti-immigration policies. Limiting the number of ‘non-EU’ immigrants entering the country to 100,000 person per year was among its manifesto commitments. The new immigration law, passed in 2014, aimed at preventing irregular migrants from renting accommodation, obtaining a driver's license, and opening a bank account. The 2016 amendments to the said law required individuals, public service authorities and private institutions to report the irregular migrants to the Home Office. Anti-immigration sentiments in the public were also among the main reasons for the UK's exit from the European Union. Brexit supporters, including current Prime Minister Boris Johnson, advocated leaving the EU with anti-immigration rhetoric.
An essential part of the UK's anti-immigration policies is the strict visa practices, especially for African countries. According to a report by the Royal African Society, many visa application centers in Africa were closed since 2007. As of 2020, it was not possible to apply for a UK visa in 24 African countries, including Benin, Chad, Gabon and Mali. Citizens of these 24 countries have to apply for a UK visa in a neighboring country. For example, a Mauritanian citizen in Nouakchott needs to travel to the capital of Morocco, Rabat, which is 2500 km away, to apply for a British visa. In addition, the applicant must obtain a Moroccan visa to enter Morocco. Visa application centers across the continent do not have the authority to evaluate and decide on applications. There are only two decision-making centers for 1.3 billion people, and these centers are operated by a private company contracted by the British government. The House of Lords criticized the increasingly harsh visa policies of the government towards African countries in its comprehensive Sub-Saharan Africa report published in July 2020. However, in response to the report, the government said it sees no problem with visa and decision-making processes.
The discriminatory immigration and visa practices for African countries do not stop there. For instance, unjustified travel bans for African countries during the pandemic, leaving out Africa from the ‘brightest and best’ visa program, which enables graduates of high-ranking universities to travel and stay in the UK for two years, and the draft law authorizingthe Home Office to strip a person’s citizenship without informing them. This last one concerns all immigrants in the UK.
But worse still, asylum seekers who entered the UK illegally may be sent to Rwanda under an agreement signed in April between the two countries. In his speech on April 14, Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that asylum seekers who have entered the UK illegally would be sent back to their countries of origin or Rwanda. Johnson warned the countries of origin of visa sanctions if they did not comply and take back the asylum seekers. It is estimated that around 28,000 asylum seekers crossed into England from France, Belgium and the Netherlands in 2021. Once sent to Rwanda, the asylum seekers will effectively be considered seeking protection not from the UK but from Rwanda. Therefore, they will have to stay in this east African country even if their asylum demands are accepted. An advance payment of 160 million dollars was allegedly made to the Rwandan government for the expenses of to-be-deported ‘illegal’ migrants.
Although it is named as a ‘migration and economic development partnership’ deal, it is essentially a 'refugee trade' agreement. There are serious warnings that this agreement, which goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of international humanitarian and human rights law, could result in grave human rights violations. As a matter of fact, the UK itself recently criticized Rwanda for its sketchy human and civil rights records. Yet, the British Supreme Court authorized the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda last Friday on the grounds that there was a ‘material public interest.’
To conclude, increasingly strict immigration policies go against the UK’S declared objective of defending freedoms and human rights. This goal is enshrined in the ‘Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy,’ which was made public in March 2021. Yet, Prime Minister Johnson's racist and xenophobic remarks about Africans and other "non-white" peoples in the past indicate that there has not been significant progress in the UK – at least with regard to the current ruling elite– in the way in which Africa and Africans are perceived since the times of the slave trade. For the UK to achieve its ambition to become a ‘soft power superpower’ and to deserve the self-designated virtue of ‘force for good’, it should adopt a principled approach as it commendably did in abolishing the slave trade and imposing it on other slave trading powers. By doing so, The UK might once again lead the international community in promoting and furthering human rights. However, the current direction of the country can lead to nothing but the erosion of its reputation as well as the international refugee protection regime. Africans will regrettably be at the forefront in enduring the impact of the UK's choice of policies in this domain.
Comments
Post a Comment