Categories

AOAV: all our reports

Former British Army chief criticises government’s plan to deport migrants to Rwanda

In an unexpected critique, General Sir Richard Dannatt, former head of the British Army, has publicly denounced the UK government’s contentious policy to deport migrants arriving on small boats to Rwanda. Labeling the initiative as misguided, Dannatt’s intervention has injected a significant military perspective into an already heated debate.

The Shadow of Rwanda’s Past

Speaking to The Independent, General Dannatt expressed his reservations about the suitability of Rwanda as a destination for asylum seekers. He emphasized Rwanda’s “dark history,” referring to the 1994 genocide that still casts a long shadow over the country. Rwanda is “not the kind of country to which people fleeing conflicts should be sent,” Dannatt argued, highlighting the nation’s ongoing struggles with political stability and human rights.

The general, who visited Rwanda as chief of the general staff in 2009, currently participates in the all-party parliamentary group on war crimes. This role gives him insights into the complexities of Rwanda’s post-genocide reconciliation and governance issues.

Political Repercussions of the Policy

General Dannatt’s criticism extends beyond ethical concerns, touching on the political implications for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government. Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who has championed the policy, was specifically called out by Dannatt for “continuing to run down the remaining political capital” of the administration with this “unpopular” policy.

The plan, according to Braverman, aims to deter illegal migration by imposing strict consequences on those arriving via unauthorized routes, such as small boats across the English Channel. However, Dannatt and other critics argue that the approach is not only inhumane but also potentially damaging to the UK’s international reputation.

Voices from Within the Conservative Party

The policy has not only drawn criticism from military figures but also from within the Conservative Party itself. Former Deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine described the rhetoric surrounding the policy as “nasty,” and former Prime Minister Theresa May has called the government’s approach a “slap in the face” for those concerned with the plight of modern slavery victims. This intra-party dissent highlights the broader unease and division the policy has spurred among long-standing members of the party.

Legal and Ethical Questions

The plan’s legality and its alignment with international refugee protections have been questioned, with legal challenges already mounting. Critics point to incidents where asylum seekers were deported to Rwanda, only to face further displacement, as evidence of the policy’s flaws. The UK courts are still assessing whether these actions violate international law, specifically the UN Refugee Convention.

Conclusion

As the debate over the UK’s Rwanda policy unfolds, it becomes clear that the issue is more than a matter of border control; it touches on fundamental questions about human rights, international responsibility, and national identity. With high-profile figures like General Dannatt speaking out, the controversy is likely to intensify, testing the resolve of the government and the unity of the Conservative Party.

As Dr Iain Overton, of Action on Armed Violence, says of the issue: “The UK’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda raises profound ethical and legal questions. By outsourcing our responsibilities to nations grappling with their own complex histories, we risk not only the welfare of these individuals but also the integrity of our commitments under international law. We must ask ourselves whether this approach truly aligns with the values we aspire to uphold as a nation.”