The UK government was quick to aid the Ukraine and its citizens, following Russia’s invasion of the country in February 2022.
Ukrainian refugees were offered immediate safe and legal passage to the UK. In contrast, besieged Sudanese caught up in a “preventive proxy war” engulfing their capital watched helplessly as foreign countries mediated short ceasefires for the sole purpose of saving their citizens and diplomats; the British, who ruled the country for nearly 60 years, and for whom Sudanese soldiers fought in the Second World War, were no exception.
When asked if Britain will create safe, legal routes from Sudan to the UK, the same way they did following the war in Ukraine, Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, said that “we have no plans to do that”, emphasising that the focus of the government will be “helping British nationals” as “that’s our duty, that’s our priority”.
Both Braverman and immigration minister Robert Jenrick claimed that the Sudanese should apply through the United Nations High Commissioner Refugees (UNHCR). However, the UNHCR denied that this was the case. UNHCR said that “there is no mechanism through which refugees can approach UNHCR with the intention of seeking asylum in the UK”.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak refused to answer whether the UK would provide child refugees fleeing Sudan with a safe passage. Asked by the SNP’s Westminster Leader, Stephen Flynn, at Prime Minister’s Question time on April 26, what safe and legal route would be available to a child refugee seeking to flee Sudan, Sunak replied that the government’s “reasonable, legal and fair” priority had been to evacuate UK nationals.
Both Braverman and Sunak must answer why they provided Ukrainians fleeing a war a safe passage and help, while refusing the same for their African counterparts. Braverman, a vocal defender of “British values,” must also explain why her office is glaringly at odds with it, where race and religion will determine if you enter these Isles in a rubber dingy or an airport.
READ MORE
