Amnesty International’s Refugee and Migrant Rights Director Steve Valdez-Symonds criticised the “shockingly ill-conceived” migration agreement between the United Kingdom (UK) and Rwanda, which allows the British government to relocate asylum seekers that have illegally entered the UK to Rwanda, asserting that the decision was “the very height of irresponsibility” and “far removed from humanity.”
On Thursday, Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Dr. Vincent Biruta and British Home Secretary Priti Patel signed the agreement, titled “Rwanda-UK Migration and Economic Development Partnership,” in Kigali. While both sides celebrated the success of the deal, no details about its exact content has been confirmed, including whether the programme would focus on single men as was previously reported.
The partnership signed today with the #UK builds on our record of hosting those fleeing conflict. It will ensure that migrants are protected and offered opportunities to live and work in #Rwanda, alongside Rwandans, if they choose to settle here. pic.twitter.com/GjVmXN7wwf
— Vincent Biruta (@Vbiruta) April 14, 2022
Patel hailed the “world’s first” agreement on the “global migration crisis” and reassured that the agreement is in compliance with the UK’s “international obligations.” She noted that over 80 million refugees are seeking asylum across the world, arguing that the deal seeks to ensure that such displaced individuals do not become victims of the “deadly trade in people smuggling.”
“This is part of the United Kingdom’s New Plan for Immigration to control our borders, protect our communities, stop dangerous illegal migration, help the world’s most desperate people, and welcome international talents to the UK,” she announced. To this end, the deal intends to resettle illegal immigrants and provide them with healthcare, housing, and training.
Our new partnership with Rwanda shows we can no longer accept the status quo.
— Priti Patel (@pritipatel) April 14, 2022
People are dying and the global migration crisis requires us to find new ways to work in partnership.
It will deal a major blow to the evil people smugglers.
This is what it means 👇🏽 pic.twitter.com/J5RAynuGu7
Meanwhile, Rwandan Minister Biruta mentioned that the agreement would also “address a serious equity issue” of the “global imbalance in opportunities for human capacity development which is driving illegal migration.” He also clarified that while Rwanda aims to provide all support for the relocated individuals’ economic and social development, they would have the option to “return to their country of origin.”
Biruta said that Rwanda is already home to 130,000 refugees from countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Afghanistan, and Libya. Furthermore, he remarked that Rwanda’s history with ethnic tensions, referring to the genocide of over 800,000 Tutsis in 1994, has given it a keen understanding of the importance of seeking refuge in other countries.
Biruta made it clear that all measures would be taken in partnership with international organisations such as the United Nations Refugee Agency, the International Organisation of Migration and the African Union. He also revealed that apart from its commitment to human rights, Rwanda is also seeking to tap into the “social, cultural and economic contributions” refugees make towards the development of recipient countries.
On the same day, British Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson declared, “From today… anyone entering the UK illegally as well as those who have arrived illegally since January 1 may now be relocated to Rwanda,” adding that the $156 million deal is “uncapped” and could result in “tens of thousands of people” being shipped to Rwanda instead of becoming victims of human trafficking.
Johnson stressed the UK’s historical role in providing sanctuary to those evading persecution in countries across the world, noting that since 2015, the UK has welcomed 185,000 refugees from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, among others. He also clarified that the immigration process for these individuals was “through safe and legal routes,” which allowed the government to make “generous offers of sanctuary.”
In this regard, the British PM stated that “uncontrolled immigration” increases pressure on the government and the medical, education, housing, and public transport systems, adding that it was “unfair” for individuals to “queue jump” those legally seeking asylum, including women and children.
We are taking bold action to tackle the vile people smuggling trade and fix our broken asylum system. pic.twitter.com/MHisLf9ofC
— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) April 14, 2022
Additionally, Johnson lauded Rwanda as “one of the safest countries” in the world that has been “globally recognised for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants.” However, this statement is contrary to the British government’s previous allegations against the Rwandan government. In fact, in the United Nations (UN) last year, the UK had demanded explanations for the reports suggesting the Rwandan government’s involvement in killings, forced disappearances, and torture.
Recognising this reality, Rwanda’s key opposition party, the DALFA Umurinzi, asserted, “Rwanda produces refugees, too. These include Rwandan people who sought political and economic asylum in other countries… It is important [that] the Rwandan government focusses on solving its political and social internal issues that make its citizens seek refuge in other countries, before it offers to host migrants from other countries.”
Commenting on an offshore deal between UK + Rwanda, the UN refugee agency, @Refugees, reminded that people fleeing war + persecution deserve compassion and empathy – not “traded like commodities”. https://t.co/eGQfM9MGq4
— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) April 14, 2022
In a similar vein, the Human Rights Watch released a statement underlining Rwanda’s “appalling human rights record,” with several reports of “extrajudicial killings, suspicious deaths in custody, unlawful or arbitrary detention, torture, and abusive prosecutions, particularly targeting critics and dissidents.”
The deal has also been condemned for its impact on the safety and rights of asylum-seekers. The United Nations Refugee Agency expressed concern that it allows for vulnerable individuals fleeing persecution to be “traded like commodities” without “sufficient safeguards and standards.”
The UK has an obligation to ensure access to asylum for those seeking protection.
— UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency (@Refugees) April 14, 2022
UNHCR strongly opposes the plan to export its asylum obligations. We urge the UK to refrain from transferring asylum seekers and refugees to Rwanda for asylum processing. https://t.co/01ygqrmuu4 pic.twitter.com/TMkq1z6KiD
Along the same lines, the chief executive of the UK-based Refugee Council, Enver Solomon, expressed concern about the “dangerous, cruel, and inhumane” implications of the agreement. Furthermore, a spokesperson for the UN Human Rights office called out the UK for “shifting... its responsibilities and obligations under international human rights and refugee law onto a country, which is already taking great asylum responsibilities.”
Experience shows these agreements:
— UNHCR United Kingdom (@UNHCRUK) April 14, 2022
- are eye-wateringly expensive
- often violate international law
- lead to the use of widespread detention
- lead to more smuggling, not less
With this deal the UK is looking to shift its responsibilities towards refugees, not share them. https://t.co/9FAKkdaOGy
A large focus on this agreement’s implementation will be on the English Channel, as each year, thousands of illegal immigrants use small boats, or dinghies, to cross the Channel from France to the UK; 28,526 individuals made the journey in 2021. In fact, on Wednesday alone, a day before the agreement was signed, 600 people were reported to have landed in the UK through the Channel.
Historically, deals that relocate asylum seekers to third world countries have failed in ending illegal immigration and human trafficking. For instance, in 2013, Australia sent asylum-seekers to Papua New Guinea and Nauru in an attempt to curb rampant human trafficking from Southeast Asia. The policy was a huge failure and Canberra was severely criticised for abrogating its international obligations. Similarly, Israel’s attempt to “voluntarily” relocate individuals to Uganda and Rwanda did not work either, with a large number of resettled individuals escaping to Europe.