A fishy deal called Rwanda

On 13 April, PM Johnson announced a plan to send asylum seekers to the central African country of Rwanda to have their applications considered. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rwanda-offshore-asylum-seekers-boris-johnson-priti-patel-b2057541.html

The controversial proposals address a growing problem. The numbers crossing the Channel by boat soared from 299 in 2018 to 28,526 last year. Border Force staff were told to plan for 60,000 this year but that was before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February. https://news.sky.com/story/nearly-60-000-people-set-to-cross-english-channel-in-2022-as-home-office-agrees-234-000-spend-on-charter-boat-12557219

90% of the arrivals are male (including children). 51% of the total are not from Africa but come from Iran or Iraq. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-december-2021/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-december-2021 .

From London Heathrow to Rwanda’s Kigali airport is 4,095 miles https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/lhr-to-kgl/ . It looks like an extraordinary scheme, but seems inspired by a 2019 scheme by the UNHCR to use Rwanda to safeguard refugees from Libya. https://au.int/en/articles/au-government-rwanda-and-unhcr-joint-rescue-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-libya

Will it work for us? Concerns have already been voiced in Parliament about human rights, not only of those redirected from Britain but also those who may have been told to vacate their hostel to make room for the new arrivals. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-04-26/debates/3FCB40EE-081B-4745-9D72-4B0F7938F4D9/RwandaHumanRights The plans cater primarily for adults, not children, and ‘families could be relocated there together in exceptional circumstances.’ https://news.sky.com/story/where-is-rwanda-why-are-migrants-being-sent-there-and-how-will-it-work-12589831 It looks as though there will be many cases for human rights lawyers to bring to the British courts about this deal, which is ‘widely criticised as inhumane, expensive for the UK, unworkable and contrary to international law’ (applicants may have to stay there for up to five years) and initially set to cost the UK a £120 million ‘investment in Rwanda's economic development’ https://issafrica.org/iss-today/rwandauk-deal-degrades-refugee-conventions-and-africas-approach

Another aspect of the agreement, less publicised so far, has been raised by a Youtuber https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6UhNGwBEtw : section 16 of the Memorandum of Understanding https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r#part-1--transfer-arrangments says –

‘The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.’

This paragraph is very vague and ‘the devil is in the detail,’ as they say:

• ·       Rwanda’s existing refugee population – mostly women and children – numbers some 126,000, about 61% Congolese and 39% Burundians; a ‘portion’ could mean a great many.
• ·       The ‘portion’ could be anything, from 1% to 99%
• ·       ‘Most vulnerable’ might possibly be a pointer to persons with mental and physical special needs and disabilities, severe malnutrition, HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections; the Rwandan government presumably has less resources to help these than does the UK. https://reporting.unhcr.org/document/1273

The UK’s ‘boat people’ have all left the shores of a safe European country and instead of intercepting them in the world’s busiest waterway and returning them to their coastal departure point, we are taking them to British hotels and a beanfeast of taxpayer-funded legal wrangling. This latest twist seems set to exacerbate media controversy and the human rights argy-bargy, and commit us to accepting an unspecified number of refugees, some of whom may be even more costly to assist and care for.

It looks like another ill-considered ‘eye-catching initiative’ destined to have worse results in every way.