Published
- 8 min read
From Opium to Asylum - A Legacy of Exploitation in British Policy
Britain’s historical approach to foreign affairs sheds light on the rationale behind the Rwanda bill, reflecting a legacy of colonial attitudes and policy decisions.
Somewhere around 1781, the British Empire began trading Opium with the Chinese[1]. The British penchant for tea from China had led to the Empire running low on Silver, which was used to purchase the tea. British merchants were unable to convince the Chinese to trade with British goods. This left the East India Company and other traders to do what any half-decent colonialist entity would; they became drug dealers. Opium use had always been a part of Chinese life to aid with sleep and relaxation, but when the British started to sell Opium to the Chinese in exchange for Silver, it would lead to an addiction epidemic, a ban, and eventually the Opium Wars.[2]
Less than a decade later, the First Fleet would set sail to Botany Bay, with a crew which included 700 convicts.[3] Their mission: to spread a little British hospitality upon the natives of Australia. What better way to do it than with a cargo of miscreants?
Nearly two centuries earlier, John Hawkins became the first Englishman known to have traded Africans as slaves. Taking some 1200 men from Sierra Leone to Hispaniola and St Domingue (Dominican Republic and Haiti). Selling them to the Spanish in exchange for pearls, hides, sugar, and ginger.[4]
In 2006, the cargo ship Probo Koala dumped its toxic waste into Côte d’Ivoire. The dumping resulted in 100,000 people requiring medical treatment. The toxic waste was produced by the multinational company Trafigura. Trafigura tried and failed to get rid of the waste in five countries before reaching Côte d’Ivoire. The coordination of the toxic waste was managed by a UK-based subsidiary of Trafigura. Internal Trafigura emails showed the attitude of their staff, one stating:
“I don’t know how we dispose of the slops and I don’t imply we would dump them, but for sure there must be some way to pay someone to take them.”
The Ivorian company Compagnie Tommy was paid just $17,000 to get rid of the waste around the city of Abidjan. Once exposed, the dumping resulted in Trafigura having to pay $200 million in compensation to the Côte d’Ivoire government.[5]
In an Amnesty International report on the incident, the organisation had the following to say: [5]
“In March 2014, Amnesty International sent the UK authorities substantial evidence that the actions of Trafigura’s directors and employees in the UK may have amounted to a corporate conspiracy to dump waste abroad (under section 1A of the UK Criminal Law Act 1977).”
“In March 2015, the Environment Agency refused to investigate the case even though they acknowledged that, if Amnesty International’s allegations were true, “a serious offence was committed”. Despite this, they decided not to investigate based purely on the likely costs and benefits of undertaking that investigation.”
As you have probably noticed, there is a pattern emerging between all these events, a pattern that shows a blatant disregard for any level of morality in the sale or removal of dubious goods ranging from drugs to slaves to toxic waste. The British have for centuries played loose with how they, and more importantly what they, send around the world. The irony is that despite spending centuries setting off from the shores of the United Kingdom to rape and pillage the globe mainly by sea, when a small dinghy full of asylum seekers arrives at the very same shores from the same lands they colonized, all hell breaks loose.
It would be correct to assume that mass migration creates a reaction from the host nation, not always a welcoming one. However, policies such as the Rwanda bill are premised more on old colonial attitudes than one-off events. In any other place in the world, the Rwanda bill would defy all logic. Why would a host nation ship asylum seekers off to a random place incapable of dealing with them while they are processed? In Britain, knowing its colonial attitudes and understanding its history, this makes complete sense.
Of course, Rwanda is not doing this for free. Rwanda’s Economic Transformation and Integration Fund (ETIF) has already been paid £220m with a further £150m of payments scheduled by 2026.[6] Richer nations of the world use their wealth to do as they please, trading weapons, carbon credits, and now human beings like it’s a game. The real-world consequences of these decisions are irrelevant.
In the same week that the Rwanda bill was passed, a child drowned while making the journey across the channel to the UK.[7] Those supporting the Rwanda bill, including Rishi Sunak, will say that Britain has become a soft touch and easy target for migrants. Thus, following this logic, if migrants know they will be shipped off (or flown off) to Rwanda, they will simply stop coming over. This kind of logic assumes that a person, a real human being with feelings, hopes, and fears, travels halfway across the world, suffers humiliation, is bought and sold simply to breathe the same air as an increasingly racist nation. What this flawed logic conveniently forgets is the century and more of economic, geopolitical, and military reengineering of the world that nations like Britain and America have done. Capitalism and Democracy, ideas so sacrosanct that millions of Iraqis and Afghans had to die to uphold them, have led to endless wars, increasing instability, and economic collapse for much of the world. Just like the root causes of terrorism are forgotten, the root causes of migration are too.
While the Western world has been reeling from increasing inflation over the last few years, this has been the default for the developing world for decades. Fiat currency and IMF loans have made living outside of the nations with the strongest currencies and economies a near impossibility. Western wars have driven millions to abandon their homes to find safety. Western Multinational corporations have been carving up swathes of Africa for their economic gains, thus destroying traditional industries such as farming,[8] there isn’t much for people to stay in their own countries for. The list is endless, with each point having been spoken of and exposed numerous times over the years.
All of this matters little to those making the policies with the idea of ideological and ethnic superiority Britain feels towards the rest of the world. Yes! Even with an Indian heritage Prime minister. When the likes of Tory MP Chris Philp appearing on BBC Question Time doesn’t know the difference between Rwanda and Congo, you can watch the clip here; the throwaway attitude towards the whole issue is apparent. Heaven only knows what would happen when he realizes there are two countries called Congo in Africa. At least the government is clear that anyone coming from Rwanda will not be sent back to Rwanda, but to a one-bedroom bedsit in some racist part of the underbelly of broken Britain.
Of course, for many who support the policy, the Daily Mail, for example,[9] will point to the stunning tree-lined resort-like conditions that the migrants will experience in Rwanda. A little over-exaggerated to be fair; even if this were true, imagine the reaction of the locals Rwandans once they find out the migrants are living better than they are. Again, it’s about moving the problem abroad.
The controversy surrounding the bill hasn’t gone away with it being made legal. The UK government now faces the problem of transporting migrants across to Rwanda. Unlike setting sail to colonise America on the Mayflower (another colonial misadventure), the problem is Rwanda is landlocked. The only way to get there is by air. However, when even the official airline of Rwanda refuses to take any migrants lest it be deemed to be supporting the policy, it speaks volumes.[10] The Ryanair owner did come forward to say his airline would be willing to run the flights. He probably thinks he can charge the asylum seekers for carry-on luggage.[11]
If Rishi Sunak really wants to stop people coming to this country along with not meddling in the affairs of other nations, he should make a cross-country promo video. He could go around to all those places where Britain is broken, its roads are potholed, its schools are falling apart, people are working two jobs and not being able to make ends meet. Where western culture has led to a mental health epidemic, where if you are ill you have to wait tens of hours for an ambulance and if you are poor you are likely to do less well in life. Capitalism has not only failed the world is has exploited through its policies, but it is now eating itself. The only reason asylum seekers or economic migrants come to Britain is because they are desperate. A desperation created by British foreign policy and the policies of the west.
Sending Asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing is nothing more than legalized people trafficking, something only a nation driven by no morality and a track record like the United Kingdom could do.
Rule Britannia, Britannia Rules the Waves.
[1] https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1113&context=ulra
[3] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/first-fleet-sets-sail-australia/
[4] https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/the-slave-trade-and-abolition/time-line/
[5] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/04/trafigura-a-toxic-journey/
[6] https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/the-costs-of-the-uk-rwanda-partnership/
[7] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dad-girl-7-who-drowned-32655443
[8] https://www.smh.com.au/world/multinationals-carving-up-africa-for-food-20131229-301jk.html