The refugee transfer market between the United Kingdom and Rwanda

 

 

    

                    Diana Soares displays the United Kingom's new deal with Rwanda and what it could mean to refugees.

                    On the 14^th of April, British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, flew to Kent to give a speech about the new strategy to challenge immigration.

         This plan sends migrants who arrive illegally in the United Kingdom to Rwanda. This scheme targets especially asylum seekers that pass through the English Channel, who will now be shipped to a country almost 6500km away.

         This 142€ million agreement was signed hours after Boris’ speech by the British Home Secretary, Priti Patel, Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs and the International Cooperation, Vincent Biruta, in Kigali, Rwanda.

This implies that “From today, our new migration and economic partnership will mean that anyone arriving in the U.K. illegally as well as those who have arrived illegally since January 1 may now be relocated to Rwanda,”. Anyone that enters illegally will be transferred to Rwanda while their asylum claim is handled by the Rwandan government if they are accepted as refugees, they will remain there.

                This deal has poor morals written all over it. It obligates refugees to go to a country they did not choose. A country that is known for its lack of respect for human rights. This deal means a lot to Rwanda, not just because of the money but also because it helps them clean their international image.

                Rwanda is a country that has a weak Freedom House index (21/100), a country that does not respect its citizens’ human rights. Is recognized for having a transnational repression system, where citizens who flee the country never really feel out of harm's way. Additionally, most people still recall the genocide that occurred in 1997.  

                This refugee agreement with the UK means a lot to Rwanda in the international arena. If a stable, powerful, and dignified democracy like the British makes such an important partnership with Rwanda, it indicates more states might follow in Britain’s footsteps. Gifting Rwanda a clearer international appearance.

                For Britain, this agreement is intended to help solve the migrant crisis and divide the ones that come in real need and the ones that only seek economic benefits, economic migrants.  Home Office statistics show that 90% of the migrants that entered Britain by small boats were male, and supposedly most were single, which entails they were more expected to be economical refugees. This settlement was also spurred by the fact that the number of migrants is expected to grow, from the highest point of 600 a day to 1000. This solution is supposed to dissimulate people from crossing the English Channel with fear of being deported to Rwanda.

                This offshore processing of migrants seems like a replica of Australia´s failed one. Australia started using offshore detention centres in 2001, in Papa New Guinea and in the Republic of Nauru. In 2013 they opted to refuse resettlement visas to any refugee that came by boat.  Since 2013 over 3000 people have been transferred to these detention centres, including children. These people have been mistreated and neglected, comparing these centres to punishment.  Going against international law that states refugees must be respected.

                Many assert that this policy has not been effective and has only caused human suffering. Besides that, it is very costly for the Australian government, which spent around A$8.3 billion (US$6.2 billion) between 2014 and 2020.

At a time when the people of the UK have opened their hearts and homes to Ukrainians, the government is choosing to act with cruelty and rip up their obligations to others fleeing war and persecution.

                This agreement was announced on the same week the British parliament was in recess and during the Partygate scandal involving the PM. That led to Boris Johnson being fined for having parties and breaking rules during the lockdown. A scandal that left him with a very poor image. The Rwanda declaration serves to draw attention from Partygate to something new.

                Last year the UK raised questions about Rwanda’s respect for human rights even granting asylum to Rwandan refugees. These are included in the exception of people who the UK government will not send to Rwanda. Raising the question of how the government can go from criticizing a country for its lack of respect for human rights to sending refugees there. It also comes at a time when Ukrainian refugees are more than welcomed in the UK and others are not. Their faith is now being placed in the hands of a country that does not even respect and protect its own citizens.