The United Kingdom: Welcoming Ukrainian Refugees — Not the Sudanese

As clashes between the Sudanese army and a paramilitary group have killed hundreds of people and displaced tens of thousands more, Britain has deployed 1,000 members of its armed forces, the Home Office, and border forces to help evacuate its citizens from the country.

The Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, said in a statement that the government’s priority was to support British citizens, passport holders, and their families. She said that between 200 and 300 Britons had been flown out of Sudan on a few flights.

The violence erupted last week over plans to integrate the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a former militia accused of human rights abuses, into the regular army. The RSF resisted the move and clashed with army units loyal to Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, who was briefly detained by the RSF.

The United Nations said that more than 400 people had been killed and over 100,000 had fled their homes since the fighting began. Many of them sought refuge in neighboring countries such as Chad, South Sudan, and Egypt.

Britain’s evacuation effort contrasted with its reluctance to offer safe routes for refugees fleeing conflict in Sudan.

But unlike its response to the Russo–Ukrainian war that started in February 2022, which brought more than 117,000 Ukrainians to Britain, the government has not announced any plans to resettle Sudanese refugees.

 

No Plans

The British government has no plans to open a special resettlement scheme for refugees fleeing violence in Sudan, a Home Office spokesperson said on Friday.

The statement came in response to a question from the Middle East Eye, a news website that covers the region, about whether the UK would follow the example of other European countries that have offered safe and legal routes for Sudanese asylum seekers.

The spokesperson said that the UK was “monitoring the situation closely” and that it had helped nearly 500,000 people from conflict zones such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine since 2015 through its existing resettlement programs.

But they added: “While our safe and legal routes are some of the most generous anywhere, we cannot accommodate everyone who wants to come to the UK and we are not able to open a bespoke route for every situation.”

The statement did not mention Sudan by name, despite the ongoing violence and political turmoil in the African country that has displaced millions of people and triggered a humanitarian crisis.

Some Sudanese refugees who have made it to the UK told the Middle East Eye that they hoped the British government would show more compassion and solidarity with their plight.

Ali, a 34-year-old asylum seeker from Khartoum who arrived in 2020, said to Al-Estiklal he fled Sudan after being threatened with imprisonment for refusing to spy on democratic activists. He said his uncle was killed in fighting in the capital.

He crossed Libya and the Mediterranean Sea before reaching Britain on a boat.

“The Sudanese people have nothing to do with the war there, all they need is a safe place to live, so the British government must provide them with safe routes,” he added.

Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais, a charity that supports refugees in France and Belgium, said it was “virtually impossible” for Sudanese refugees to reach the UK via safe routes.

“Care4Calais has worked with thousands of refugees who have escaped unimaginable horrors in Sudan,” she said.

 

No Answers

As Sudan faces a violent conflict that has displaced millions of people, many Sudanese refugees who have fled to Britain are facing the threat of deportation, The Independent reported on Tuesday.

The British government has no clear plan to offer safe and legal pathways for Sudanese asylum seekers, unlike those from Ukraine and Afghanistan, the newspaper said. Instead, it has focused on evacuating its own citizens and embassy staff from the African country.

About 4,000 Sudanese migrants have crossed the English Channel in small boats since 2020, making them the eighth-largest nationality to use this dangerous route, according to The Independent.

Some lawmakers have challenged the government’s approach, arguing that it leaves African refugees with no viable alternatives.

Tim Loughton, a Conservative MP who proposed an amendment to force the government to establish legal and safe routes, told The Independent that the situation for Sudanese asylum seekers was what he feared “specifically.”

“For this, the additional methods, which my amendment heralds, will help,” he said.

Loughton also questioned Home Secretary Suella Braverman about what would happen to “a 16-year-old orphan from an East African country fleeing a war zone” who wants to join relatives in the UK.

Braverman replied: “If you can reach the UK, you will be able to apply for asylum.”

But when Loughton asked how an African teenager could obtain a visa or arrive on a commercial flight amid the chaos in Khartoum, Braverman had no answer.

“Then I will only enter the UK illegally,” Loughton concluded.

The Independent noted that there is no asylum visa for people who want to come to the UK legally, and that the process of applying for different types of visas and traveling to Britain by flights is unclear.

Some Sudanese relatives of British nationals have been denied temporary visas and excluded from evacuation flights amid a crackdown on asylum seekers, The Independent reported. Among those affected is the grandmother of an 87-year-old British doctor who has been living in Sudan for decades.

The report comes as the British government is pushing for a new migration bill that would make it harder for people to claim asylum in the UK. The bill would also criminalize arriving in British waters without permission and increase the penalties for steering dinghies across the Channel.

Rishi Sunak vowed that small boat migrants will be detained and deported under the new legislation. Thousands of asylum seekers have already been threatened with transfer to Rwanda because they traveled through safe countries on their way to Britain.

The government says the bill is necessary to deter illegal immigration and protect the integrity of the asylum system. But critics say it violates international law and human rights and risks creating a two-tier system that discriminates against refugees based on how they arrive.