What is a rules based global order? What are the human rights? Who is to decide on which societies or countries are democratic? Well as per prevailing global scenario, it is the Western block governments and media that calls the shots, for most part atleast.
How else can one explain that vastly different reactions to the India’s Citizenship Amendment Act and British Rwanda plan? While India’s CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) aims to ‘provide’ fast track citizenship to persecuted minorities of three neighbouring countries in the Indian sub-continent, the British government’s Rwanda plan actually wants to deport the illegal migrants from United Kingdom.
On the one hand, despite offering number of explanations including historical context, the United States or others in the Western block went ahead and expressed concern or found India’s CAA to be discriminatory, there is hardly any blowback on the British Rwanda plan. “No foreign court can stop us”. Illegal migrants will be deported from UK. No ifs no buts. Runway ready, aircraft ready, 500 men ready to push them out”, stated Rishi Sunak, the British Prime Minister, who is banking on this plan becoming operational to increase his party’s chance for re-election in the upcoming Parliamentary vote.
Now the choice of Rwanda as a country to deport its ‘illegals’ is itself interesting if not controversial. This as UK Supreme Court itself has found Rwanda to be unsafe country and the ruling was based on comprehensive evidence including findings by Human Rights Watch on Rwanda’s well established track record of repression and abuse.
But the British government then made a smart move and actually legislated Rwanda to be a ‘safe’ country. This legislation that Rwanda is ‘safe’ would prevent courts from interfering but also make oversight wholly ineffective.
Whats all the more ironical is that UK’s close partner and ally United States had warned Rwanda and Congo to walkback from bring brink of war and this happened in February 2024 itself.