Nagging queries in UK-Rwanda immigrants deal

A new immigration proposal by the United Kingdom (UK) unveiled on April 14 to send some asylum seekers thousands of miles to Rwanda for either processing or settlement is being viewed as wrong on many fronts. It is both a legacy and geopolitical issue.

The agreement with Rwanda is aimed at stopping “vile people smugglers” from turning British Channel into a “watery graveyard”. According to statistics, more than 28,000 people entered the UK in boats last year, up from 8,500 in 2020. Over the years, dozens have died during the treacherous journey after their boats capsized.

But why turn Rwanda into a haven of illegal immigrants? Why sell the problem elsewhere while the asylum seekers travelled thousands of miles to their preferred destination? What will be the future legal and social ramifications of such a move, say ten years from now, when the country hosts a sizeable population of the perceived misfits?

This is not to denigrate Rwanda’s empathy in acceding to the request. Rwanda is already home to 130,000 refugees from several countries including Burundi, Congo, Libya and Pakistan.

Previously, the East African country, together with Uganda, entered into a similar deal with Israel, on condition that the returnees do so on their own volition. But the plan was shelved in 2019 after it faced legal headwinds. Between 2017 and 2019, Rwanda and Uganda had received 4,000 deportees from Israel.

As a developing country, this initial five-year $160 million deal is a welcome source of revenue. The money could be used to streamline and develop the country’s immigration sector, including upscaling national integration programs started as a result of the 1994 Rwanda genocide that led to the death of an estimated 800,000 citizens.

Some of the asylum seekers could be an invaluable addition to the country’s talent pool, which could give the developing economy a boost, in its formulation and implementation of development programs and policies. Rwanda lost quite a considerable percentage of its professionals during the genocide.

A third likely outcome of the UK program would be the cultural pedigree that could result from a mixture of Rwandans and people from other descents.

Ultimately, it could add to the country’s gene pool and strengthen resiliency and enhance cultural tolerance.

But the more things change, the more they remain the same. The racist legacy and historical credentials of Europe still linger. From slavery to colonialism, both vices that spanned a few centuries, the “white” continent still look down on Africans as inferior and their intentions suspicious. It is this background that makes the UK deal with Rwanda reek with racism.

No country in the world welcomes illegal immigrants without due process. That would be reckless. But there should be some basic level of justice that runs across all asylum seekers such that there is no discrimination based on country or region of origin.

In a press conference in Kigali on April 14 during the signing of the deal, Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Vincent Biruta sounded upbeat, the only caveats being screening of the asylum seekers and the ineligibility of persons from the East African Community (EAC).  Although the latter raised eyebrows, it is assumed that the country does not want to antagonise other EAC members by creating a perception of harbouring dissidents from its neighbours.

Although it is not as influential as some of its neighbours in the region, the EAC member is seen as a role model for a relatively stable socio-economic and political system.

If it has not yet done so, Rwanda should demand certain concessions to mitigate against the future and hidden costs of the deal.

The exit clause should include the UK taking responsibility for the deportations that Rwanda decides if they endanger the country’s law and order. The level of goodwill in the deal must surpass all expedience.

— The writer comments on international matters