illegally, some of whom cause serious issues. There is also a perception among Europeans that Africa is underdeveloped and its people illiterate or impoverished. While poverty exists on both continents, being poor in Africa may actually be more bearable, though this may surprise some. Many Africans who emigrate to the US or Europe return to their home countries, disillusioned by the reality that their lives abroad do not meet the dreams they once had. Some individuals from Africa express a desire to return to their homeland; however, they face significant familial pressure discouraging such a decision.

As a migrant myself, I understand these challenges firsthand and wish to help others navigate migration regularly, orderly, and safely.

The Way Forward:

To enhance the benefits of migration for both Europe and Africa, it is imperative that the two parties cease their evasive tactics and engage in a meaningful and structured dialogue regarding migration.
In the meantime, the political landscape across Europe has undergone significant transformations in recent months, and while I harbor uncertainties regarding the ease of this endeavor, I firmly believe that dialogue will be imperative. That is the rationale behind the inception of diplomacy, and it is a principle I hold in high regard.

Nevertheless, I must concede that European “experts” appear ill-prepared for a meaningful dialogue, and I harbor doubts regarding the readiness of African “experts,” if there are any. Please raise your hands, I will be happy to meet you.

Over the past three years, I have made efforts to engage with experts for insightful discussions. Nevertheless, it appears that Europeans possess a superior understanding, as they often refrain from engaging with my enquiries upon discovering that my perspective diverges from theirs.
In a productive discourse, a variety of ideas and perspectives are acknowledged and contemplated – NOT SIMPLY A SINGLE ONE!

Consider the following “discussions” with other “experts” in the field:

During the period when I was engaged in my Masters Thesis, the UNHCR contended that “100 percent of all asylum claims by Syrians and Yemenis were rejected”. The Rwandan Government called the criticisms of the UNHCR hypocritical. “For example, their claim of ‘100% rejection rate’ of asylum seekers from some parts of the world is dishonest – a total of two individuals from Syria and Yemen were indeed not considered for asylum because there was a faster and more appropriate path to legal residence, and these individuals are currently living and working in Rwanda.”

Therefore, I tried to talk to UNHCR, and it was not my intention to embarrass them. Rather, I just wanted to know what they think about the asylum system in Rwanda. UNHCR KIGALI responded that they are not prepared to engage in a discussion with me regarding this matter. Numerous endeavors to engage in discourse regarding “everything else” with them proved fruitless. They seem disinclined to engage in conversation with me, nor are they willing to offer me an internship opportunity. What rationale exists for offering an internship to an individual with expertise in asylum matters? The only logical conclusion can be that they have other candidates much more knowledgeable than me on the subject. The internship would have incurred no expense for them, while I could have acquired significant insights. However, it seems that this is precisely what they seek to circumvent.
UNHCR was boycotting my work in other ways: the Rwanda-UK-Asylum-Deal is comparable – at least theoretically – with the so-called “Pacific Solution” that Australia was putting into practice. I requested a thorough scientific and/or legal analysis but received merely some links in response. One of them says that UNHCR is criticizing externalization of asylum procedures. My inquiry regarding what is precisely regarded as illegal remains unanswered.

The conclusion of my thesis posits that the absence of justification for the argument is evident, as silence on the matter suggests a lack of support.

Lastly, UNHCR has recently started talking about the abuse of the asylum system by migrants (The Migration Debate: a challenge for liberal democracies? FT) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eh4RK8bkZE&list=WL&index=9&t=514s). Consequently, I sought to gather further insights regarding their updated perspective on this matter and enquired with Ruven Menikdiwela, the Assistant High Commissioner for Protection at UNHCR. Once more, they provided a link and declined to address any enquiries regarding the matter.

One may draw any conclusions one deems appropriate from that information. My conclusion is that they are not professionals but rather a collective of fervent ideologues who approach the asylum system with a zeal akin to that of a religious conviction. And believe me, I am well aware of the ways in which religions uphold their sacred beliefs; better not come in their way.

Undoubtedly, this unscientific methodology is prevalent throughout the so-called “scientific community”. Lorenzo Piccoli, associated with the Migration Policy Centre of the European University Institute, posted in an article on verfassungsblog.de that the agreement between Italy and Albania could potentially infringe upon the fundamental rights of asylum seekers. This agreement entails the transfer of asylum seekers to a location supported by Italy, where their administrative procedures would be conducted on Albanian soil, albeit under the jurisdiction of Italian law.
The UNHCR has deemed this system to be consistent with international obligations (UNHCR on Italy-Albania- Deal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0AcaxR-eM&t=189s Min. 3:55). Thus, I asked Mr. Lorenzo Piccoli regarding the nature of these “fundamental rights”- his lack of response leads me to conclude that he was merely composing text without engaging thoughtfully with the subject matter.

During my studies, I came across a self-declared “migration expert” who had actually studied Cultural Science, Dr. Judith Kohlenberger. She authored an article in “Suedwind” that essentially conveyed that the new EU-asylum policy was in conflict with fundamental human rights. I corresponded with Dr. Kohlenberger via two e-mails. All of them continue to await a response from the “expert”.

In the Weekend issue of the East African Newspaper dated June 14, 2024, Mr. Stephen Partington who does not claim to be an “expert” penned an article “Politics & Verse”. I made a comment to the author, who was gracious enough to respond that he found it intriguing, but no further follow-up was provided by the newspaper. 

Conclusion:
To foster a meaningful dialogue, it is essential to move beyond the current “migration monologues,” which often devolve into a blame-game characterized by two predominant narratives: one that accuses Europeans of racism and a reluctance to accept Africans, and another that criticizes Africans for not repatriating their citizens, leaving them in Western prisons, taking advantage of the western social systems, and engaging in drug-related activities that harm western children.