What's Behind The Deadly Surge Of Violence In Pakistan's Balochistan?

April 23, 2024 
By Abubakar Siddique

A man walks past charred truck containers torched by the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) in the central Bolan district in Balochistan Province on January 30.

Pakistan's southwestern province of Balochistan has been the scene of a low-level insurgency and a brutal government crackdown for decades.

But the vast and resource-rich province -- home to the South Asian country's ethnic Baluch minority -- has witnessed a surge in deadly attacks in recent months.

The gun attacks and suicide bombings have targeted Pakistani security forces as well as foreign nationals.

Who Is Behind The Attacks?

Most of the attacks have been claimed by the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), a separatist militant group and U.S.-designated terrorist organization.

The Majeed Brigade, the BLA’s suicide squad, is believed to have carried out the most complex attacks.

SEE ALSO:
Pakistani Protests: Baluch Women Seek Answers, Justice In Disappearance Of Loved Ones

The BLA is considered the largest armed group operating in Balochistan. It is allied with the Baloch Liberation Front, the other major separatist militant group active in the province. Experts believe the BLA has several thousand members.

Last year, Baluch militants carried out 110 attacks, according to the Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies, an Islamabad-based think tank. In the first three months of 2024 alone, the groups have launched 62 attacks, suggesting a sharp rise.

Who Are They Targeting?

The BLA is targeting the Pakistani Army and police and has been blamed for killing Chinese workers.

Since January, the group has attacked government offices in the port city of Gwadar, the lynchpin of Chinese investments in energy and infrastructure in Pakistan. The BLA also attacked Pakistan's largest naval air force base and attempted to overrun the strategic town of Mach.

Assassinations and improvised-explosive-device (IED) attacks have been reported almost daily.

A general view of Gwadar port, which is the lynchpin of Chinese investments in Pakistan. (file photo)

"Anyone affiliated with the state's crackdown in Balochistan is their target," said an Islamabad-based expert who tracks the region and spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

Zafar Baloch, a Balochistan researcher based in Britain, says the BLA and other separatist groups seek independence from Pakistan. The groups have demanded that the Pakistani military leave Balochistan and for China to end its "exploitative" projects in the province.

SEE ALSO:
Cross-Border Strikes A Major Escalation In Long-Running Iran-Pakistan Dispute

The Baluchis blame Islamabad for exploiting the vast natural resources in Balochistan and committing grave human rights abuses in the impoverished region.

Why Was There A Sharp Increase In Attacks?

The expert in Islamabad said the "recruitment of the separatist militant organizations has skyrocketed" recently. That, the analyst said, has enabled the groups to "launch more attacks."

The disputed February elections, marred by widespread allegations of fraud, added "fuel to the fire" because they deprived the Baluchis of real political representation, the analyst says.

The Baluch youth, the analyst says, do not "see any avenue for expressing their dissent."

Baluch political parties, which had formed most provincial governments in the past, lost power in the controversial elections.

Sarafaz Bugti, a Baluch politician who is backed by the military, now heads the provincial government.

Baloch, the Britain-based researcher, said that "Islamabad's counterinsurgency strategy, based on a militarized approach, is the root cause" of instability in Balochistan.

A man looks at charred shops and a vehicle torched by the BLA militants in Bolan district, Balochistan on January 30.

Activists have accused the Pakistan military of the enforced disappearances of thousands of people and a "kill-and-dump" policy against political activists and suspected armed separatists.

Baloch says Islamabad's suppression of a sit-in protest by the relatives of Baluch victims of forced disappearances and unlawful killings in January dented the community's hopes for a political solution to their woes.

Are Baluch Separatists Growing In Strength?

Analysts say the Taliban takeover of neighboring Afghanistan has boosted the capabilities of armed groups in the region, including Baluch separatist groups.

Some of the military gear and weapons left behind after the U.S. military withdrawal in 2021 and seized by the Taliban have turned up and been used by Baluch armed groups.

The influx of U.S. weapons has "opened new avenues for these groups to thrive," Baloch said.

SEE ALSO:
What Is Jaish Al-Adl, The Separatist Group Targeting Iranian Forces?

The researcher says the BLA has also evolved in recent years. Once led by tribal figures, the group is now run by educated middle-class professionals who think in "modern and unconventional ways." Since 2018, several Baluch separatist groups have coalesced around the BLA.

Baloch says the group has used digital and social media to attract new recruits and cultivate sympathy from the civilian population.

Pakistan is not willing to address the deep-rooted political grievances that keep Balochistan unstable, the Islamabad-based analyst says.

"If 20 years of kinetic operations have not solved anything," the analyst said. "It will not solve anything in the next 20 years."    

Abubakar Siddique a journalist for RFE/RL's Radio Azadi, specializes in the coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is the author of The Pashtun Question: The Unresolved Key To The Future Of Pakistan And Afghanistan. He is also one of the authors of the Azadi Briefing, a weekly newsletter that unpacks the key issues in Afghanistan.

Raising Hairless Primates

Wednesday, 24 April 2024
Opinion: Human Bridges

I remember the first time I observed my daughter pointing. We were at a neighborhood playgroup, a daily gathering of toddlers and their parents, and 12-month-old Tessa pointed at a painting of a koala on the wall. I marveled at her, almost yipping with joy. In the days and weeks that followed she pointed with growing frequency at things that interested her, and, more importantly, things she wanted to share with me. And every time she did this, I looked at her in astonishment. The other parents thought I was nuts.

Earlier in my life, I was a primatologist—I studied behavior and communication in capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees, and bonobos (the latter a relative of the chimpanzee, but a distinct species with very different behavioral characteristics). I eventually specialized in gestural and multimodal communication in great apes. Great apes have more cortical control over their hands than other primates, and they use their hands to gesture to one another. In addition to gestures, apes use facial expressions and vocalizations to communicate, and sometimes they use all three modalities simultaneously (as humans do)—hence the term “multimodal communication.”

One thing I always looked for while gathering my data was pointing; it was rare among the socially housed, outdoor-living chimps I studied, and the handful of times I observed it, it was a big deal. To be sure, chimps have other ways to signal to each other what they want, but pointing with their index fingers isn’t usually one of them. When I saw this very common behavior develop in my own child, my appreciation deepened for just how complex (and social) human cognition is.

Primatologists study our closest living relatives for a variety of reasons—to intrinsically understand more about their lives (diet, habitat, mating patterns, genetics), to understand how they interact with their environments, and to shed light on what our last common ancestor with the apes might have been like. One of the enduring mysteries of human evolution is how much of our behavior and cognition is uniquely human and how much can be found in living primate species. This was my research focus.

When I stared in amazement as my daughter pointed to the koala painting while looking at me, what the other parents didn’t know was that I was marveling at how often human toddlers point, and referentially point, at that—meaning children point to share attention, not just to obtain things. The distinction is known as declarative vs. imperative pointing—“Hey Mom, look at that cool thing over there!” as opposed to “Give me that piece of candy on the shelf.” Pointing is considered a hallmark of communication, language development, and joint attention (when one individual wants another to pay attention to the same thing she is looking at), and neurotypical toddlers do it all the time (the absence of pointing is a marker for autism).

In addition to my daughter Tessa, I have a son, Eli, who is two years younger than her. Like all siblings, they are obsessed with fairness (I don’t believe any parent who says their kids aren’t). If one kid gets a cookie that’s even a millimeter bigger than the other’s, all hell breaks loose. You can try all you want to justify to them why one cookie is bigger, but the kids aren’t having it. We tend to think this focus on fairness is uniquely human, but my lab colleague Sarah Brosnan and our PhD advisor Frans de Waal corrected this notion 20 years ago in a landmark study aptly named “Capuchins Reject Unequal Pay.” In this study, two brown capuchins (highly intelligent South American monkeys) worked side by side on a token exchange task. As a reward, each received a cucumber slice. When the monkeys received the same reward for the same work, all was peaceful. That peace was quickly disrupted when one received a grape (more desirable than the cucumber) and the other still got the cucumber. After being perfectly happy with a cucumber, once the monkey saw the other one’s grape, he lost it; he literally threw it out of his enclosure with what I freely admit is an anthropomorphized sense of indignance. Capuchins reject unequal pay indeed.

When I see my children argue over the fact that one’s backpack is taking up an inch more space on his side of the car than the other’s, I try to remember that this is evolutionarily ancient behavior, one that ensures that cooperation is beneficial to our species. Why do we care if someone gets more than we do, all other things being equal? In the long term, if we feel assured that everyone is putting in equal amounts of work for similar pay, we’re more willing to cooperate. I tell this to my kids, but for some reason, they don’t act like rational beings and bicker less. But when they figure out that cooperating nets them big payoffs (such as stepping on each other’s shoulders to reach the candy I thought I’d so cleverly hidden), they’re my shining examples of evolutionary continuity. I couldn’t be more proud.

Viewing my children through primatological glasses provides me with an ongoing perspective on raising them. When they have tantrums, argue over the last slice of cake, or try to get my attention through gestures, those glasses enable me to take a step back and recognize a broader purpose (I hope!) of their behavior. And this perspective also helps me feel another layer of connection. Remembering that we’re all one big primate family makes the wilds of human parenting a little more manageable—and fun.

By Amy Pollick

Author Bio: Amy Pollick received her PhD in animal behavior from Emory University, working with Frans de Waal on gestural and multimodal communication in great apes. She is a former director of government relations for the Association for Psychological Science, and she has taught at Gallaudet University. She lives in Washington, D.C.

This article was produced by Human Bridges.

© Scoop Media

BACKGROUNDER

Critics: UK’s Rwanda plan for asylum seekers makes no fiscal or moral sense

As the United Kingdom advances legislation to send undocumented migrants on a one-way trip to Rwanda, detractors warn that the plan violates international law and won't stop the influx of refugees.


SUNNIYA AHMAD PIRZADA

TRT

 Migrants travel in an inflatable boat across the English Channel, bound for Dover on the south coast of England (AFP/Ben Stansall).

Migrants who have arrived in the United Kingdom through "irregular routes" since Jan. 1, 2022 may soon find themselves sent to Rwanda under a controversial plan gaining traction in the UK government.

Under the proposed five-year plan, if migrants' asylum applications are successful, the individuals could be granted refugee status and permitted to remain in Rwanda. However, if the claim is rejected, they could either apply to settle in Rwanda on other grounds, or seek asylum in another "safe third country."

Notably, no asylum seeker would be allowed to apply to return to the UK under this arrangement.

The government aims to implement this plan as a deterrent against people arriving in the UK via small boats across the English Channel. But critics say it makes no logistical, fiscal or moral sense.


Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak hosts a press conference inside the Downing Street Briefing Room, in central London, on December 7, 2023, after Britain and Rwanda sign a new treaty to transfer illegal migrants to the African country (AFP/James Manning).

Gunes Kalkan is head of Campaigns and Communications at Safe Passage International, which provides legal support to unaccompanied children and other refugees to reunite with family in the UK.

Speaking to TRT World, Kalkan said, "The plan is not good value for money and more importantly, it's not good value for people."

According to government figures, in the year ending June 2023, 52,530 irregular migrants entered the UK, up 17 percent from the year ending June 2022. Some 85 percent of these individuals arrived via small boats in 2023.

This data indicates that the number of people subject to the new measures is likely to be in the tens of thousands, especially if the legislation does not deter people from arriving.

Not a deterrent Peter William Walsh, a senior researcher at the Migration Observatory, a research institute focused on UK migration and migration policy, has called the Rwanda proposal "quite a radical plan."


People believed to be migrants picked up at sea attempting to cross the English Channel from France, are driven away in a bus from the Marina in Dover, southeast England, on January 17, 2024 (AFP/Ben Stansall).

Speaking to TRT World, he said he didn't think it would work, as evidence suggests that asylum deterrence policies have a relatively small effect on asylum migration.

"Political repression, civil or ethnic conflicts, economic inequality, ecological disaster - these are much bigger drivers of asylum migration," he added.

Kalkan also pointed out that the government's own analysis shows there is little to no evidence that changing policies in the destination country deter people from leaving their home countries.

Analysts say the two most important considerations for people who are choosing the UK as their final asylum destination are the presence of family members and familiarity with the English language.

When you are running for your life, trying to reach safety, you don't have time to plan. You take risks to escape from your country where they are trying to kill you or persecute you.

Shams Moussa, a refugee from Niger who has now been granted leave to remain in the UK, arrived in the UK in 2017. He was initially housed in temporary accommodation in London before settling in northeast England.

Speaking to TRT World, the 46-year-old refugee-turned-activist said there's no such thing as an illegal way to arrive in the UK. Sitting in a dimly lit office in what is now his hometown of Darlington, Moussa recalled that he left Niger "in a very clandestine way, without any documents."

He continued, "When you are running for your life, trying to reach safety, you don't have time to plan. You take risks to escape from your country where they are trying to kill you or persecute you."

Given the history of Niger’s military coups, Moussa had to flee because of his political views. He said had the Rwanda plan been in place back then, he’d still have made the journey because those seeking safety are seldom aware or paying attention to changes in the policies of their destination countries.

Gaining traction As the Rwanda bill makes its way through Parliament, no asylum seeker has yet been sent to the country, which is located in east-central Africa, approximately 6,500km (4,000 miles) from the UK.

: A view of migrants on the beach at sunrise after a failed attempt to cross the Channel to the UK on a small boat, in Sangatte, near Calais, France, August 10, 2023 (REUTERS/Pascal Rossignol).

The first scheduled flight to Rwanda, planned for June 2022, was cancelled following legal challenges. And in November 2023, the UK Supreme Court delivered a unanimous ruling declaring the scheme unlawful. The court found that genuine refugees sent to Rwanda under this scheme would be exposed to the risk of being returned to their home countries, where they could potentially face harm.

This would be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which played a significant factor in the court's decision.

Following Brexit, the UK is no longer part of the European Union, but it is still a member of the Council of Europe and hence a signatory to the ECHR, an international court of the council.

The court’s ruling also highlighted concerns regarding Rwanda's poor human rights record and its history of mistreating refugees.

However, the UK government has since introduced a new bill aimed at explicitly designating Rwanda as a safe country under UK law.

The legislation, subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament, instructs courts to disregard certain sections of the Human Rights Act, effectively bypassing the Supreme Court's decision. Some Members of Parliament (MPs) have voiced criticism of the legislation, arguing that it violates international law.

This week, a parliamentary report reached the same conclusion. After a thorough review, it found the legislation to be fundamentally incompatible with the UK's human rights obligations.

The report added that the legislation undermines the protections outlined in the Human Rights Act, violates certain provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and does not allow the UK to adhere to international treaties.

   

Choosing Rwanda

Amid all the concerns about Rwanda, why did lawmakers choose it as a safe third country to deport migrants to from the UK?

According to Walsh, "The government may have approached other countries but perhaps had been unsuccessful in reaching agreements. Also, this has provided a platform for Rwanda on the international stage to present itself as a modern, democratic country that respects human rights."

The UN, however, has been quite strident in its criticism of the Rwanda policy and the broader asylum policy that the UK government has pursued, describing it "as amounting to an asylum ban."

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, has criticised the UK-Rwandan asylum partnership as running counter to the fundamental principles of global solidarity and responsibility-sharing that underpin the international refugee protection system. It says this policy is an example of "externalisation" of international protection.

In addition to introducing the Safety of Rwanda Bill, the UK government entered into a new migration treaty with Rwanda in December 2023. Home Secretary James Cleverley stated that the treaty ensures individuals sent to Rwanda to seek asylum would be protected from the risk of being returned to their home country.

It also mandates the inclusion of UK judges in a new appeals process.

The cost of removing each individual to a third country like Rwanda is approximately £63,000 ($80,000) more than keeping them in the UK.

But Kalkan said that the government is "playing politics" with refugees' lives and "undermining the country's international and human rights laws" to inflict misery on people who are simply searching for a safer life.

He added the government has been unjustifiably "fixated on this issue of people crossing the channel (even though) the number of asylum claims that the UK receives, as a proportion of the population compared to the rest of Europe, is quite low."

The UK government has already paid £240 million ($303 million) to Rwanda to bolster this plan, with an additional £50 million ($63 million) expected in the 2024-25 financial year. However, Rwandan President Paul Kagame has offered to refund the money paid by the UK if no asylum seekers are sent to Rwanda under the agreement.

According to official data, the cost of removing each individual to a third country like Rwanda is approximately £63,000 ($80,000) more than keeping them in the UK (factoring in the cost of flights and payment to Rwanda, versus the cost of housing and benefits per person)

"Why would you give another country money to take care of your responsibility, to take care of poor people arriving in your country," Moussa asked.

"To them it’s just a political game. Legally, ethically, financially - it is just not right," he said, adding that his work as a campaigner to help fellow asylum seekers is far from being done.
The UK's asylum system currently incurs an annual cost of nearly £4 billion ($5 billion), including approximately £8 million ($10 million) per day on hotel accommodation.

But financials aside, there is a human cost to this Rwanda plan.

As a charity that works to reunite refugee families, Safe Passage is concerned families will be torn apart if the legislation goes ahead.



The group has been supporting individuals with family ties in the UK who have been threatened with deportation to Rwanda, causing them immense distress. Many are living in constant fear of being forcibly relocated and are uncertain about their safety.

"People who fled war and persecution need to feel safe so they can start to recover and rebuild, not face more risks and uncertainty," Kalkan said.

For its part, the government has been insisting that only those who arrive using irregular routes will be considered for deportation to Rwanda. But Moussa said the plan will not stem the flow of traffic, as there is no other real safe passage available to these migrants.

"We didn't hear this happen when the Ukrainian crisis started. How can a 16-year-old child from Sudan get into this country without a safe route in place? No warlord is going to wait for him to grab his passport so he can safely get on a plane to the UK," he said.


An aerial view shows rolled-up inflatable dinghies and outboard engines, that are believed to have been used by migrants and asylum seekers who were picked up at sea whilst crossing the English Channel from France to England, stored in a Port Authority yard in Dover, southeast England, on January 16, 2024 (AFP/Ben Stansall).

Kalkan said offering refugee visas is the only viable option as "offshoring asylum systems is never an acceptable solution. This government has shamefully chosen to deny refugees safe ways to reach the UK."

He acknowledged that it may be difficult to stop the bill from becoming law, but there will still be several hurdles before it can be implemented and there would be legal challenges to the policy itself.

“There will be many people who will be fighting tooth and nail to ensure that these plans cannot be implemented,” he warned.

SOURCE: TRT WORLD

SunniyaPirzada is a Peabody award-winning journalist whose work focuses on the intersection of race, class and gender and how it impacts people and societies around the world.

Human rights groups slam UK Rwanda plan after Parliament approves bill

Both the UN refugee agency and the Council of Europe called for the UK to rethink its plans because of concerns that the legislation undermines human rights protections.



AP ARCHIVE

Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speaking during a press conference at Western Jet Foil in Dover. / Photo: AP Archive

Britain’s plans to send some asylum-seekers to Rwanda has been swiftly condemned by international humanitarian organisations after Parliament approved legislation allowing the deportation flights to begin later this year.

Both the UN refugee agency and the Council of Europe on Tuesday called for the UK to rethink its plans because of concerns that the legislation undermines human rights protections and fears that it will damage international cooperation on tackling the global migrant crisis.

“The new legislation marks a further step away from the UK’s long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention,” UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi said in a statement.

“Protecting refugees requires all countries — not just those neighbouring crisis zones — to uphold their obligations.”

The statement came just hours after Britain’s House of Lords dropped its attempts to amend the legislation, paving the way for it to become law.

On Monday, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said deportation flights to Rwanda would begin in 10-12 weeks.

Human rights of asylum seekers

For his part, Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, criticised the legislation for preventing asylum-seekers from asking the courts to intervene when they are they are threatened with being sent back to the countries they are fleeing.


“The adoption of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill by the UK Parliament raises major issues about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law more generally,” O’Flaherty said in a statement.

“The United Kingdom government should refrain from removing people under the Rwanda policy and reverse the bill’s effective infringement of judicial independence.”

The reaction came as French media reported that at least five people died Tuesday when a boat carrying about 100 or more migrants got into trouble while trying to cross the English Channel.

Sunak’s government says its deportation plans will help stop the tide of people entering Britain illegally because migrants won’t make the risky crossing in leaky inflatable boats if they know there is a chance they will be sent on a one-way ticket to Rwanda.

The number of migrants arriving in Britain on small boats soared to 45,774 in 2022 from just 299 four years earlier as people fleeing war, famine and economic hardship paid criminal gangs thousands of pounds to ferry them across the channel.

Meanwhile, the Rwandan government welcomed the approval of the bill, saying it underscores the work it has done to make Rwanda “safe and secure” since the genocide that ravaged the country 30 years ago.

“We are committed to the migration and economic development partnership with the UK and look forward to welcoming those relocated to Rwanda,” government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said.

Is UK's 'Rwanda Plan' violating international law?

Controversy brews as the UK pushes ahead with deportation legislation, raising questions about compliance with international law and humanitarian standards.



REUTERS

The UK has passed legislation to send unwanted asylum seekers to the African country, despite international concerns and criticism. / Photo: Reuters Archive

The UK government has recently passed controversial legislation to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, despite facing humanitarian concerns and condemnation.

Tasked with scrutinising proposed legislation, the House of Lords on Monday repeatedly sent back the plans with amendments to MPs in the lower chamber.

However, they eventually agreed to make no further changes, ensuring the bill's passage into law after British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the government would force Parliament to sit as late into Monday night as necessary to pass it.

Sunak had already promised to start sending asylum seekers to Rwanda within 10 to 12 weeks.

Despite mounting international pressure to reconsider the legislation due to concerns about its compliance with international law, Sunak said the government had booked commercial charter planes and trained staff to take migrants to Rwanda, a policy he hopes to benefit from in the upcoming elections due this year.

“No ifs, no buts. These flights are going to Rwanda,” Sunak told a news conference earlier on Monday.

However, there are significant concerns regarding the Rwanda Plan, which many critics argue breaches international law and undermines human dignity.

What is the ‘Rwanda Plan’ and how does it work?

In April 2022, the UK and Rwanda signed an agreement for people seeking asylum in the UK to be deported to Rwanda, known as the ‘Migration and Economic Partnership’ or ‘Rwanda Plan’.

The law will let the government send asylum seekers to Rwanda some 6,400 kilometers (4,000 miles) away, if they arrive in Britain without permission.

Under the scheme, once refugees have been sent to Rwanda, they will be processed under Rwandan law and unable to return to the UK.

Initially set up to take effect from January 1, 2022, the first deportation flight scheduled for June 2022 was blocked by European judges. The UK Supreme Court subsequently upheld a ruling that the scheme was unlawful because the migrants risked being sent back to their home countries or to other countries where they would be at risk of abuse.

In response, the Prime Minister agreed to a new treaty with Rwanda and introduced new legislation - the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill - to overcome any legal obstacles and declare the country safe.

Although no deportations have occurred, Britain has already paid Rwanda more than £200 million ($304 million), and it could cost more than £600 million to resettle some 300 refugees.

Who does ‘Rwanda Plan’ apply to?

Rwanda Plan covers all asylum seekers who have entered the UK ‘illegally’, even though there is no way to apply for asylum from outside the country and no refugee visa to enter the country ‘legally’.

This is despite the fact that under the Refugee Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, asylum seekers have the right to apply for asylum in the UK and should not be penalised for arriving irregularly.

Home Office statistics also show that most people crossing the Channel are subsequently recognised as refugees.

This means that people arriving are already extremely vulnerable and should not be penalised for seeking asylum.

But for Sunak’s government, stopping the flow is a priority, despite critics saying the plan to deport people to Rwanda rather than handle asylum seekers at home is inhumane and carries possible international law breaches.

How might the deportation law violate international law?

The UK is a signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the Refugee Convention, which recognises seeking asylum as a fundamental human right.

It establishes the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting the expulsion or return of refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened.

It also specifies that refugees should not be penalised for illegal entry or stay in most cases, recognising that seeking asylum may necessitate breaching immigration regulations for safety.

Article 31 of the Convention further outlines that refugees arriving directly from a threatening country, and entering a state without permission, should not be penalised.

Being a signatory to the Convention, the UK is therefore obligated not to penalise asylum seekers for their irregular entry into the country.

Additionally, on 15 November 2023, the UK Supreme Court also ruled that the Rwanda plan was illegal because deporting asylum seekers would breach UK and international human rights law.

In a unanimous decision, the court also ruled that Rwanda was not a safe country because of the risk that it would not properly adjudicate asylum claims and would return refugees to places where they would face persecution.

However, in response to the top court’s ruling, Britain and Rwanda signed a treaty pledging to strengthen protections for migrants. Meanwhile, Sunak’s Conservative government pushed for Rwanda to be declared a safe destination, making it harder for migrants to challenge deportation and allowing the British government to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights that seek to block removals.

‘Legislation hinders rule of law in UK’: UN

Despite international concerns and criticism, the UK has passed legislation to send unwanted asylum seekers to the African country.

Later today, international humanitarian organisations swiftly condemned Britain’s plans after the approval.

“The new legislation marks a further step away from the UK’s long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention,” UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi said in a statement.

“Protecting refugees requires all countries – not just those neighbouring crisis zones – to uphold their obligations.”

Volker Turk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, also stated, “By shifting responsibility for refugees, reducing the UK’s courts’ ability to scrutinise removal decisions, restricting access to legal remedies in the UK and limiting the scope of domestic and international human rights protections for a specific group of people, this new legislation seriously hinders the rule of law in the UK and sets a perilous precedent globally.”

“It is critical to the protection of the human rights and dignity of refugees and migrants seeking protection that all removals from the UK are carried out after assessing their specific individual circumstances in strict compliance with international human rights and refugee law.”

Migrants drown in English Channel as deportation bill is approved

April 23, 2024 
By VOA News

A helicopter of the Emergency medical services takes off from the Wimereux dike on April 23, 2024, after the recovery of the body of five migrants, who died overnight trying to cross the Channel from France to Britain on their overcrowded small boat.


Five migrants, including a child, have died while attempting to cross the English Channel from France to the United Kingdom, according to French authorities on Tuesday.

The deaths occurred hours after the British parliament approved a migrant bill that calls for deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda as a way to discourage them from making such journeys across the Channel.

Boats packed with migrants were spotted by authorities off the coast of Pas-de-Calais early Tuesday. Officials say the 112 passengers on a packed vessel began to panic as the engine stopped and several people fell into the water near the shore. Migrants often attempt to make the crossing in flimsy inflatable dinghies that are not strong enough to withstand the waves.

Migrants travel in a dinghy on the waters of The English Channel toward the south coast of England on Sept. 1, 2020, after crossing from France.

Several French navy ships rescued people from "a very overcrowded boat carrying more than one hundred...," according to a statement given to the Associated Press.

Rescuers retrieved some of the people, with four taken to hospitals, but 58 migrants remained on the boat to complete their journey to Britain once they were able to restart the engine, according to the coast guard.

The French coast guard was still searching for survivors off the beach in Wimereux, but it is confirmed that a woman, three men and a 7-year-old girl died. The bodies were discovered on a beach Tuesday morning.

The incident occurred shortly after British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's plan to deport migrants to Rwanda — aimed at deterring illegal entry into the U.K. — won approval in parliament.

Sunak: First migrant flights to Rwanda begin in ‘10-12 weeks’

The plan has sparked criticism from human rights groups and international organizations like the United Nations.

Critics argue that the plan is cruel and could harm cooperation on global migration issues, adding that deterrence policies do not work to prevent migration. Despite the risks migrants face crossing the English Channel, the U.K. government is pushing forward with its deportation strategy.

An estimated 30,000 people made the crossing in 2023, according to U.K. government figures.

Archbishop of Canterbury continues his assault on the PM's Rwanda plan as Justin Welby and other church leaders say they have 'deep misgivings' about migrant deportations and slam Tories for using refugees as a 'political football'

By GREG HEFFER, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 23 April 2024

The Archbishop of Canterbury continued his assault on Rishi Sunak's Rwanda plan today as he and other church leaders expressed 'deep misgivings' over the scheme.

Justin Welby issued a statement alongside Stephen Cottrell, the Archbishop of York, and senior figures from the Catholic Church and other denominations.

Their intervention followed the eventual approval of the Prime Minister's new Rwanda legislation by both Houses of Parliament last night.

The clerics slammed the Safety of Rwanda Bill for 'the precedent it sets at home and for other countries in how we respond to the most vulnerable'.

They also hit out at senior Tories for using the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers as 'a political football'.

The Archbishop of Canterbury continued his assault on Rishi Sunak 's Rwanda plan as he and other church leaders expressed 'deep misgivings' over the scheme

Mr Welby has been among the fiercest critics of Mr Sunak's efforts to deport Channel migrants to Rwanda to have their asylum claims processed in the African country.

He has previously warned Mr Sunak he is 'leading the nation down a damaging path' and suggested the plans are 'immoral'.

In their joint statement today, Mr Welby and other church leaders said: 'We retain deep misgivings about the Safety of Rwanda Bill, passed in Parliament last night, for the precedent it sets at home and for other countries in how we respond to the most vulnerable.

'This includes victims of modern slavery and children wrongly assessed as adults, whom we have a duty to protect.

'As leaders in Christian churches we wish to express our profound gratitude to those who live out Jesus's call to feed and clothe the poor, and to welcome the stranger, through their work with asylum seekers and refugees, at times in the face of opposition and prejudice.

'We note with sadness and concern the rise in hostility towards those who come to these islands seeking refuge and the way in which the treatment of the refugee and asylum seeker has been used as a political football.

'We are disappointed that the kindness and support offered by churches and charities to the people at the heart of this debate – those fleeing war, persecution and violence trying to find a place of safety – has been unjustly maligned by some for political reasons.'

The church leaders also blasted senior politicians for their response to the chemical attack in Clapham, south London, in January.

Abdul Ezedi, the suspected attacker, came to the UK hidden in a lorry in 2016 and was turned down twice for asylum.

He then successfully appealed against the Home Office rejection by claiming he had converted to Christianity.

The case saw intense scrutiny over the role of church leaders in asylum cases.

In the wake of the Clapham attack, Tory MP Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, used a newspaper article to hit out at 'naive' vicars.

He claimed the clergy should never be 'drawn into opining on the veracity of asylum claims, for whilst they may practise the word of God they do not possess his all-knowing wisdom'.

In their statement, Mr Welby and his fellow faith leaders said: 'In their response to the tragic attack in Clapham earlier this year, some former Home Office ministers, MPs and other commentators sought to portray churches and clergy as deliberately facilitating false asylum claims.

'It was for this reason, at the request of Anglican leaders, that representatives of our churches met the Home Secretary in February.

'When asked, neither he nor officials could provide evidence to support the allegations of widespread abuse.

'Home Office ministers have since confirmed this in a written parliamentary answer, and on questioning by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

'Follow-up meetings have since been agreed to promote closer co-operation and co-working between the churches and the Home Office.

'Like so many in this country, we seek to support a system that shows compassion, justice, transparency and speed in its decisions. We grieve the appalling loss of life in the Channel today.

'There may be differences between our churches and Government on the means by which our asylum system can be fair, effective and respecting of human dignity, but we do agree that borders must be managed and that vulnerable people need protection from people smugglers.

'We have pledged to continue to work with the Home Office, and we do so in good faith.'

UN urges UK to reconsider Rwanda plan - as minister admits legal challenges are 'inevitable'

Michael Tomlinson says legal obstacles lie ahead, but that the government "will overcome them".

Alexandra Rogers
Political reporter @Journoamrogers
Tuesday 23 April 2024 

Legal challenges to Rishi Sunak's Rwanda bill are "inevitable", the illegal migration minister has admitted, as human rights organisations called on the government not to put the scheme into force.

Michael Tomlinson said the government wanted to ensure flights get off the ground "as soon as possible" but that there would undoubtedly be challenges to the legislation, which passed around midnight last night after months of parliamentary ping pong

"There will be challenges, but we will meet them, we will overcome them," he told Kay Burley on Breakfast.

His words come as five migrants died during an attempt to cross the Channel on Tuesday morning.

Mr Sunak believes the Rwanda bill - which seeks to deport asylum seekers arriving in the UK via small boats to the African nation - will act as a deterrent for those who are considering making the dangerous Channel crossing.


Mr Tomlinson declined to give extensive details on the Rwanda flights, including which commercial airline and airport will be used, saying: "There are those who are determined to stop this, and if I go into detail such as that with you, then that will help those who are wanting to stop this."

Politics Hub: Latest reaction after Rwanda bill passes Commons

Rwanda bill to become law after late night row between government and Lords

Lords push back on Rwanda bill again - despite PM declaring 'enough is enough'


Following the bill's passage, the United Nations and the Council of Europe urged ministers to reconsider the scheme.

Filippo Grandi, the UN high commissioner for refugees said the bill, which is likely to receive Royal Assent and pass into law this week, marked a "further step away from the UK's long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention".

"Protecting refugees requires all countries - not just those neighbouring crisis zones - to uphold their obligations," he said.

Rwanda bill to become law

"This arrangement seeks to shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermining international cooperation and setting a worrying global precedent."

Volker Turk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, criticised the bill for "reducing the UK's courts' ability to scrutinise removal decisions, restricting access to legal remedies in the UK and limiting the scope of domestic and international human rights protections for a specific group of people".

The Council of Europe joined the UN in urging the government not to enact the scheme, with human rights commissioner Michael O'Flaherty arguing the UK "should refrain from removing people under the Rwanda policy and reverse the bill's effective infringement of judicial independence".


The Rwanda bill will become law this week after the House of Lords, which had repeatedly expressed its displeasure with the bill, decided it would no longer oppose it following hours of wrangling last night in a bid to secure changes.

Read more from Sky News:
PM can no longer blame his opponents if the scheme fails
Asylum seekers warn others against seeking refuge in UK

Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said the country was "pleased" the legislation has passed.

She said the bill's passage "doesn't alter what we have always known to be true" - which is that Rwanda has "worked hard over the last 30 years to make Rwanda a safe and secure country for Rwandans and non-Rwandans alike".

Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper branded the scheme an "expensive gimmick" that will affect "less than 1% of asylum seekers" arriving in Britain.

 

UK-Rwanda Asylum Law: UN Leaders Warn Of Harmful Consequences

Wednesday, 24 April 2024
Press Release: UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

GENEVA (23 April 2024) – Following the passage of the “Safety of Rwanda” Bill by the UK Parliament, two UN leaders have again sounded the alarm on the harmful impact it will have on global responsibility-sharing, human rights and refugee protection.

Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, are calling on the UK government to reconsider its plan to transfer asylum-seekers to Rwanda and instead to take practical measures to address irregular flows of refugees and migrants, based on international cooperation and respect for international human rights law.

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill was tabled before Parliament alongside the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Treaty after the UK’s Supreme Court found last year that the proposed transfer of asylum-seekers to Rwanda would breach international and UK law, noting weaknesses in the Rwanda system for determining individual asylum claims. But the Bill and the Treaty do not in practice overcome the protection gaps identified by the Supreme Court. Rather, once enacted, it will restrict the UK courts from properly scrutinising removal decisions, leaving asylum-seekers with limited room to appeal even if they face significant risks.

“The new legislation marks a further step away from the UK’s long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention,” said Grandi. “Protecting refugees requires all countries – not just those neighbouring crisis zones – to uphold their obligations. This arrangement seeks to shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermining international cooperation and setting a worrying global precedent.”

“The UK has a proud history of effective, independent judicial scrutiny. It can still take the right steps and put in place measures to help address the factors that drive people to leave home, and share responsibility for those in need of protection, with European and other international partners,” he added.

For this, a fair, efficient and well-governed migration and asylum system is key – ensuring access to protection for those in need and enabling the return home of those with no lawful basis to remain.

Acknowledging the challenges presented by the irregular movement of refugees and migrants, often in dangerous circumstances, the UN leaders nonetheless expressed grave concern that the legislation would facilitate transfers under the UK-Rwanda asylum partnership, with only limited consideration of their individual circumstances or any protection risks. They called on the UK instead to pursue practical cooperation with countries along the routes that refugees and migrants take, to strengthen protection and offer real alternatives. This includes expanding safe and regular pathways to protection.

“By shifting responsibility for refugees, reducing the UK’s courts’ ability to scrutinise removal decisions, restricting access to legal remedies in the UK and limiting the scope of domestic and international human rights protections for a specific group of people, this new legislation seriously hinders the rule of law in the UK and sets a perilous precedent globally,” said Türk.

“It is critical to the protection of the human rights and dignity of refugees and migrants seeking protection that all removals from the UK are carried out after assessing their specific individual circumstances in strict compliance with international human rights and refugee law.”

The new legislation is the third in a series of progressively restrictive UK laws that have eroded access to refugee protection in the UK since 2022, including through a ban on access to asylum or other forms of permission to stay in the UK for those arriving irregularly via a third country. If implemented, it would pave the way for asylum-seekers, including families with children, to be summarily sent to Rwanda to present their asylum claims, with no prospect of return to the UK. It will also drastically limit the ability for asylum-seekers to challenge or appeal removal decisions, with decision-makers and judges required to conclusively treat Rwanda as a “safe” country in terms of protecting asylum-seekers - regardless of any evidence to the contrary, now or in the future. This situation is even more concerning given the legislation expressly authorizes the Government to disregard any protective interim remedies from the European Court of Human Rights.

© Scoop Media

Rwanda Bill to become law in major illegal migration milestone

Final phase of implementing the flagship policy to commence, marking a crucial step in the global response to illegal migration.

From:Home Office and The Rt Hon James Cleverly MP

Published23 April 2024




UK government efforts to stop the boats and tackle illegal migration took a major step forward, after the Safety of Rwanda Bill completed its passage through Parliament overnight, Monday 22 April. 

The Bill’s passing means the government can enter the final phase of operational planning to get flights off the ground to Rwanda, pioneering a new response to the global challenge of illegal migration. 

Robust operational plans are in place to ensure a first flight to Rwanda can be delivered within 10-12 weeks, with multiple flights set to take off after this.

The landmark legislation means that going forward, Rwanda should be deemed a safe country for the purposes of relocating people, including in UK courts and tribunals.  

It will prevent legal challenges from being used to delay or halt a person’s removal to Rwanda on the grounds that Rwanda is generally unsafe, or that an individual will be returned to an unsafe country after removal to Rwanda – an act known as refoulement.   

The Bill makes it unambiguously clear that UK Parliament is sovereign, and the validity of any Act of Parliament is unaffected by international law. Ministers will be able to retain the decision on whether to comply with interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights, for example, a Rule 39 injunction.  

Home Secretary James Cleverly said:   


This vital legislation means we can now proceed with our Rwanda plan and begin removing people with no right to be here.  

The only way to stop the boats is to eliminate the incentive to come – by making clear that if you are here illegally, you will not be allowed to stay.  

Our policy does exactly that and plans are well under way to begin flights within 10-12 weeks.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said:

The passing of this landmark legislation is not just a step forward but a fundamental change in the global equation on migration.

We introduced the Rwanda Bill to deter vulnerable migrants from making perilous crossings and break the business model of the criminal gangs who exploit them. The passing of this legislation will allow us to do that and make it very clear that if you come here illegally, you will not be able to stay.

Our focus is to now get flights off the ground, and I am clear that nothing will stand in our way of doing that and saving lives.

The government is ready to deliver a first relocation flight and teams are working at pace to prepare. This includes: an airfield on standby and commercial charter planes booked for specific slots
detention spaces increased to 2,200
200 trained dedicated caseworkers are ready and waiting to quickly process claims
the judiciary have made available 25 courtrooms to deal with any legal cases quickly and decisively
to escort illegal migrants all the way to Rwanda, we have 500 highly trained individuals ready, with 300 more trained in the coming weeks.

Responding to the concerns raised by the Supreme Court, the Safety of Rwanda Bill was introduced in December last year and builds upon the UK-Rwanda Treaty. 

Together, these measures and evidence of changes in Rwanda since summer 2022, will allow government to implement the policy, supporting the wider plan to stop the boats by removing the incentive to come here illegally.  

The new law, which is one of the toughest pieces of legislation ever introduced, builds upon the Treaty, reflecting the strength of the Government of Rwanda’s protections and commitments relocated to Rwanda in accordance with the Treaty. It also:   confirms that, with the new Treaty, Rwanda is safe
prevents UK courts and tribunals from delaying or preventing a person’s removal to Rwanda on matters relating only to the general safety of Rwanda
allows for an exceptionally narrow route to individual challenge to ensure that the courts will interpret the relevant provisions in accordance with the will of Parliament
disapplies relevant sections of the Human Rights Act 1998
confirms that only a Minister of the Crown can decide whether to comply with an interim measure issued by the European Court of Human Rights.

In November 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the lawfulness of resettling illegal migrants for the purposes of determining their asylum claims, but required more assurance that they would not be refouled.  

The internationally binding Treaty between Rwanda and the UK was announced by the Government in response to this finding and introduces measures to make clear Rwanda will not return anyone to an unsafe country.  

Under the Treaty, Rwanda has also introduced a strengthened end-to-end asylum system, including a new, specialist asylum appeals tribunal to consider individual appeals against any refused claims. It will have two co-presidents, from Rwanda and from another Commonwealth country, and be made up of judges from a mix of nations.

The Treaty also enhances the role of the independent Monitoring Committee, which will ensure adherence to obligations under the Treaty and have the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring.  

But this significant step forward remains just one part of the government’s wider plan to stop the boats. Solid progress has been made, with the number of small boat arrivals falling by more than a third in 2023. Our work with international partners prevented more than 26,000 crossings last year, as well as helping to dismantle 82 organised crime groups since July 2020.  

Our new agreement with Albania has cut Albanian small boat arrivals by more than 90 per cent; and we recently signed a ground-breaking deal with Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, marking another crucial step in securing our borders.  

The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent in the coming days.

Before and after pictures from NASA show the impact of Dubai floods

Images by Landsat 9 showed many areas were still underwater

 By Sarah Sebastian Updated: April 23, 2024 

Abu Dhabi. Before and after the floods | NASA

The US space agency NASA has released satellite images captured by the Landsat 9 satellite that shows large, lingering pools of floodwater in Dubai, which witnessed heavy showers last week.

According to the Earth Observatory, when Landsat 9 passed over the region for the first time since the desert storm, many areas were still under water though it was three days since the rains subsided.

The image shows flooding in Jebel Ali, a town 35 kilometres southwest of Dubai. Flooding can be seen in the industrial area of Jebel Ali just south of the port and near the green resorts and parks south of Palm Jebel Ali.

Dubai's Jebel Ali area before the floods

Jebel Ali after the floods

The satellite images also captured parts of Abu Dhabi, the UAE’s capital city, inundated. While the images on April 3 show a clearer image, those of April 19 show water covering the Sheikh Zayed Road, a major thoroughfare that runs through Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Patches of flooded areas are also visible in Khalifa City and Zayed City, residential areas southeast of Abu Dhabi’s downtown.

The images offer a clear view as the water is seen as pools of deep blue as compared to the region’s typically dry ground, which appears tan or light brown.

Normal life was thrown off tracks in the Emirate after about 25cm of rain - roughly twice the UAE's yearly average - fell in a single day. Roads were submerged, malls flooded and air traffic was disrupted. Though Dubai's Met agency had warned of the impending rains, the desert region's weather infrastructure struggled to prepare for the worst rain since 1949.

The Emirate received a record rainfall over the last two days with the National Centre of Meteorology (NCM) calling the rains "an exceptional event in the UAE's climate history since the start of recording climate data".

The showers which began on Monday flooded the streets after which schools were suspended and government employees were forced to work from home.

Airports witnessed chaos as showers submerged the taxiway and passengers struggled to reach terminals through the floodwater covering surrounding roads.