Yearly Archives: 2024

Rwanda’s refusal to refund UK funds – a diplomatic breach and ethical misstep Aug 03, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, I am writing to express my deep disappointment and to heavily criticize the Rwandan government’s recent decision to refuse refunding the UK government as part of the remigration agreement that was established under the government of Rishi Sunak. This stance taken by Rwanda not only undermines the agreement but also raises serious questions about their commitment to international cooperation and the principles of mutual respect and accountability in diplomatic relations. The remigration agreement between the UK and Rwanda was a significant diplomatic arrangement, aiming to address the complex issue of illegal migration. This agreement was intended to be a mutually beneficial solution, providing the UK with a viable option to manage illegal migration while offering Rwanda an opportunity for international support and collaboration. However, the Rwandan government’s refusal to honour their financial obligations as part of this agreement is a blatant disregard for the principles of international agreements and diplomacy. First and foremost, this decision by the Rwandan government showcases a lack of commitment to their international responsibilities. Diplomatic agreements are founded on trust, mutual respect, and the understanding that both parties will uphold their end of the bargain. By reneging on their financial commitments, Rwanda is not only violating the terms of the agreement but also damaging their credibility on the international stage. This move will undoubtedly strain the diplomatic relations between Rwanda and the UK, potentially leading to wider repercussions in terms of future cooperation and support. Moreover, the refusal to refund the UK as per the remigration agreement is a clear indication of the Rwandan government’s disregard for the welfare and rights of migrants. The agreement was designed to ensure that migrants would be treated humanely and provided with opportunities for a better future. By failing to honour their financial obligations, Rwanda is effectively jeopardizing the well-being of these migrants and undermining the very purpose of the agreement. This raises serious ethical concerns about the Rwandan government’s commitment to human rights and their willingness to provide a safe and supportive environment for those in need. Additionally, this decision reflects poorly on Rwanda’s governance and financial management. If Rwanda is unable or unwilling to fulfil their financial commitments as part of an international agreement, it raises questions about their fiscal responsibility and the allocation of resources within the country. This move could be interpreted as a sign of mismanagement or a lack of prioritization of important international agreements. It is crucial for any government to demonstrate accountability and transparency in their financial dealings, especially when it comes to international obligations. The refusal to refund the UK as part of the remigration agreement also has broader implications for Rwanda’s international relations. Trust and reliability are fundamental components of diplomatic relations. By breaking its financial commitments, Rwanda risks damaging its reputation and credibility. This could have far-reaching consequences, affecting their ability to negotiate and collaborate on future international agreements. Trust once broken is difficult to rebuild, and Rwanda’s actions in this instance could have long-lasting negative effects on their diplomatic standing. Furthermore, the Rwandan government’s refusal to refund the UK undermines the efforts of the international community to address the global issue of illegal migration. The remigration agreement was a step towards finding practical solutions to this complex problem. By failing to honour their commitments, Rwanda is hindering progress and potentially setting a dangerous precedent for other nations to follow. International cooperation is crucial in addressing global challenges, and Rwanda’s actions in this case are a setback to these efforts. In conclusion, the Rwandan government’s refusal to refund the UK as part of the remigration agreement established under the government of Rishi Sunak is a deeply concerning and disappointing decision. This move undermines the principles of international cooperation, accountability, and respect for human rights. It raises serious questions about Rwanda’s commitment to their international responsibilities, their governance and financial management, and their willingness to provide a supportive environment for migrants. Moreover, it damages Rwanda’s credibility and reputation on the international stage, potentially affecting their future diplomatic relations. I urge the Rwandan government to reconsider their stance and honour their commitments as part of the remigration agreement, for the sake of international cooperation and the welfare of migrants. Sincerely, Wayne Lyttle Journalist Related Similar Articles

Did Ashni Singh do everything possible to accommodate for a budget shortfall before asking the Guyanese people for more money? Aug 03, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Reference is made to news reports that the Government of Guyana is seeking Parliament’s approval for over US$192 million (40 billion GYD) in supplementary funds to shore up needed expenditure up to the end of 2024. Earlier this year, Senior Minister in the Office of the President with Responsibility for Finance and the Public Service, Dr. Ashni Singh had submitted a national budget of 5.5 billion USD, which was the largest in the Guyana’s history. Not a bene, the current budget is 3.5 times larger than the last pre-oil budget of 1.58 billion USD passed under the Coalition government in 2020. The record 2024 budget is in part financed by looting the Natural Resource Fund, Guyana’s sovereign wealth fund. The National Assembly approved this record budget as requested in February 2024. Now, merely six months later Dr. Ashni Singh comes back to Parliament demanding a supplementary budget of US$192 million, which amounts to 3.5% of the 2024 national budget. How come the Senior Minister in the Office of the President with Responsibility for Finance and the Public Service did not see this development? Is this result of bad planning? Did he check whether there was room for savings or reallocation of funds from other budget posts to make up for the budget shortfall? In my humble opinion, this is what one would expect from a de facto finance minister, who should be running his portfolio with caution and prudence. In fact, any Guyanese person and family has to operate on this basis to accommodate unexpected expenses, which may occur during the year. Sincerely, Andre Brandli, PhD Professor LMU Munich Related Similar Articles

affects Nicaraguans, Cubans, Venezuelans and Haitians Thousands of irregularities have been discovered in applications. Some 90,000 Nicaraguans have received parole so far, although not...

At least eight priests are believed to have been taken to a “seminary-turned-prison” in Managua. Two were detained on August 1 and six on...

By Circles Robinson HAVANA TIMES – Today’s featured artist is pianist Jesus “Chuchito” Valdes from Cuba live at the Green Space in New York with...

By Lien Estrada HAVANA TIMES – As I descended the stairs at the Loma de la Cruz on one of my morning walks, a poster...

By Orlando Milesi (IPS) HAVANA TIMES – A growing number of organizations are bringing together the Chilean women who work in the fishing and ocean...