By Abdul Tejan-Cole
Last week, Rwanda and Britain unveiled a pilot scheme in which the latter will ship off asylum seekers who arrive in Britain "illegally" to the former for the whopping sum of £120 million.
Although full details of the deal remain sketchy, it is believed that it will target mainly young male refugees who apply for political asylum in Britain. Anyone who entered the UK illegally since January 1 2022 is liable to be transferred. Each migrant sent to Rwanda is expected to cost British taxpayers between £ 20,000 and £ 30,000. This will cover accommodation before departure, a seat on a chartered plane and their first three months of accommodation in Rwanda.
Their asylum application will be processed in Rwanda and if they are successful, they will have the right to remain in Rwanda. Those whose applications fail will be deported from Rwanda to countries where they have a right to live.
The plan is contingent on the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill currently before the British Parliament. Britain is planning to send the first set of asylum seekers next month, but this is highly unlikely as human rights groups will almost likely challenge this deal in court and, as a result, delay the implementation.
In an article in the Times of London titled 'No humanitarian nation can allow this deadly trafficking to continue,' Rwanda's Foreign Minister Vincent Buruta and Britain's Home Secretary Priti Patel argue that '(T)he global asylum system is broken. Around the world, it is collapsing under the strain of real humanitarian crises, and because people traffickers exploit the current system for their own gain…This can't go on. We need innovative solutions to put a stop to this deadly trade.' They portray the agreement as a humanitarian measure that would disrupt the business model of organised crime gangs and deter migrants from putting their lives at risk.
The pro-Kagame New Times of Rwanda highlighted Rwanda's immense contribution to dealing with the refugees, noting that 'Rwanda is home to nearly 130,000 refugees from around the region.' It claims that 'even those who arrived in Rwanda as refugees fleeing violence have since been integrated in the community and enjoy access to education, healthcare and financial services. This friendly policy toward refugees and migrants is in part linked to the country's history.' It concludes by noting that 'Kigali's decision to extend a helping hand to migrants and asylum seekers in the UK who're unable to secure residence there is very much in keeping with this longstanding policy on migrants and moral obligation to provide protection to anyone in need of safety. It is, therefore, shocking that this act of generosity has come under severe attack by some people, including sections of the media.'
Many, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and many human rights and refugee organizations, held a contrary view. In his Easter Sunday sermon, Archbishop Welby raised 'serious ethical questions' about the policy and said it could not 'stand the judgment of God… It cannot carry the weight of our national responsibility of a country formed by Christian values, because sub-contracting out our responsibilities, even to a country that seeks to do well, like Rwanda, is the opposite of the nature of God who himself took responsibility for our failures.'
Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International UK's Refugee and Migrant Rights Director, said: 'Sending people to another country - let alone one with such a dismal human rights record - for asylum 'processing' is the very height of irresponsibility and shows how far removed from humanity and reality the Government now is on asylum issues.'
In an Open letter to the Prime Minister and Home Secretary, 150 organizations, including Liberty and the Refugee Council, note that '(S)ending people seeking asylum to Rwanda will cause immense suffering, with the most vulnerable people bearing the brunt. This is a shamefully cruel way to treat people who have come to the UK to seek protection, fleeing persecution or conflict. The UK already accepts proportionately fewer refugees than many other countries…To send people seeking asylum to Rwanda is cruel and immoral, and is a breach of the Refugee Convention.' Even some MPs from Boris Johnson's ruling Conservative party condemned the deal. Dozens of Home Office staff have criticized the policy and are threatening to strike because of it.
Britain tried to enter a similar agreement with Ghana and Kenya, but both rejected it, fearing a backlash from citizens. The British Rwandan deal is not new. There have several proposals, and a few of them are deals between other countries and Rwanda. Israel offshored several thousands of asylum-seekers, many of them Eritreans and Sudanese, to Rwanda and Uganda between 2014 and 2017. A public outcry forced Israel to abandon the scheme when evidence emerged that most of them ended up in the hands of people smugglers and were subjected to slavery when traveling back to Europe. Under a deal funded by the European Union, Rwanda has taken in evacuees from Libya. Denmark has a similar agreement with Rwanda, but it has not yet been implemented.
In 2016, Australia signed a similar deal with Nauru. According to the Guardian newspaper, in May 2016, Australia held 1,193 people on Nauru at the cost of $45,347 a month per person – about $1,460 a day or $534,000 a year. Also, in 2016, the European Union signed a deal with Turkey under which Turkey agreed to take back "irregular migrants" mainly from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, in exchange for reduced visa restrictions for Turkish citizens, 6 billion euros in aid to Turkey, update the customs union, and re-energize stalled talks regarding Turkey's accession to the European Union.
If these failed deals did not deter Britain, Rwanda's human rights record should have. Even Kagame's supporters concede that his human rights record is deplorable. At the 37th session of the Universal Periodic Review, Britain recommended that Rwanda' conduct transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and torture, and bring perpetrators to justice.' A Rwandan refugee in London told the Guardian that "Rwanda is a good country for image, but not for freedom of speech…Those who oppose Kagame end up in prison. The Rwandan government use torture and violence against their opponents."
The deal also contravenes international law. The principle of non-refoulement 'prohibits States from transferring or removing individuals from their jurisdiction or effective control when there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be at risk of irreparable harm upon return, including persecution, torture, ill-treatment or other serious human rights violations.' The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) notes that the UK has a duty under international law to ensure that those seeking asylum are protected. UNHCR 'remains firmly opposed to arrangements that seek to transfer refugees and asylum seekers to third countries in the absence of sufficient safeguards and standards. Such arrangements simply shift asylum responsibilities, evade international obligations, and are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention . . . [P]eople fleeing war, conflict and persecution deserve compassion and empathy. They should not be traded like commodities and transferred abroad for processing.'
Rwanda is the single most densely populated state in Africa, with a population density of more than 1,000 people per square mile. It already has its fair share of refugees from neighbouring countries. Although it has done well economically compared to many other African countries, it remains a poor nation that needs to prioritize addressing its internal economic issues rather than allowing Britain to dump its refugees on them. It is unlikely that the economic benefits of this deal will help get the average Rwandan out of poverty. If Rwanda needs more refugees, it needs to look no further than its neighbours. Many of those who will end up in Rwanda will likely be genuine refugees who would have a right to remain in Britain and white supremacists in the UK do not want them there because they do not have the right skin colour. With this deal, Boris Johnson and Priti Patel are pandering to the racists simply to get more votes. If this deal was in place in 1972 when Idi Amin deported Ugandans of Asian descent to the UK, Priti Patel's family might likely have been shipped off to Rwanda. For his part, Paul Kagame is pandering for influence and money from western nations. It undermines his claim that he is an authentic and fearless pan-Africanist who advocates for the less fortunate. What happened to speaking the truth to Western powers? Let us hope a judge in the UK stops this terrible deal.
Copyright (c) 2022 Politico Online (22/04/22)
