As of: January 29, 2024, 12:28 p.m
From: Foreign Policy
Comments
Press
Split
For Rwandan President Paul Kagame, the agreement is not just a cash cow - it also helps him avoid responsibility for Rwanda's violent past.
Washington DC - Despite being reprimanded by British and European courts, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's government has decided to sign a new agreement with the Rwandan government.
The agreement bends the law so that migrants and asylum seekers arriving in the UK can be deported to Rwanda.
Although the project is still a long way from being implemented, Sunak has managed to get his key bill through the House of Commons after a Conservative Party rebellion failed.
While No. 10 Downing Street's relentless pursuit of this policy is tied to its central election promise to fight illegal immigration by all means, the deal is not just a cash cow for Rwandan President Paul Kagame.
It also helps him avoid responsibility for his own policies toward the hundreds of thousands of Rwandan refugees and their descendants that his government has not allowed back into the country over the past three decades.
More importantly, Britain's designation as a safe haven for its own migrants reinforces the Potemkin Village facade carefully constructed by Kagame of a prosperous and stable Rwanda under his leadership.
Isn’t it just about money for Rwanda?
The Rwandan government repeatedly asserts that financial gain is not its primary interest in the migrant business.
A stance underscored by Kagame's comments at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.
Kagame indicated that Rwanda would be willing to return the funds if the migrants “don’t come.”
Rishi Sunak is even receiving criticism from within his own ranks for his plan to have people deported to Rwanda.
(Symbolic photo) © Maria Unger/AFP
However, this statement was partially retracted in a later statement by Yolande Makolo, a Rwandan government spokeswoman.
Makolo explained: “According to the agreement, Rwanda is not obliged to repay the monies paid.
However, if no migrants come to Rwanda under the scheme and the UK Government wishes to request a refund of the part of the funding allocated to support migrants, we will consider this request.”
The British government is defending its plan to use Rwanda as a dumping ground for unwanted migrants and asylum seekers as a solution to Britain's illegal immigration crisis.
However, the plan relies on the Rwandan government's ability to welcome and retain foreign refugees and migrants in a country that remains among the poorest and most densely populated countries in the world.
My news
Baerbock hits the Union with the K question at a carnival event - “... and get Söder” read
If Russia wins: Hungarian right-wing extremist wants to annex Ukrainian territories read
Russia reacts to major NATO maneuvers – and threatens “tragic consequences” read
Selenskyj warns Miosga about World War 3 - "The weapons will hardly help you" read
Putin's T-90 is defeated in a duel - a steel colossus full of weak points
Russians are advancing on several sectors of the front: Putin's goal is becoming more and more concrete
Britain must expect violence against refugees in Rwanda
Even if one ignores the Rwandan government's appalling human rights record and its role in creating new refugee populations by fomenting wars in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, one should consider Kagame's government's track record in dealing with hundreds of thousands of its own refugees.
They fled war, dictatorship and poverty.
Kagame's policies, while convenient for the British government, put the UK at risk of becoming embroiled in Rwanda's unresolved legacy of genocide and - potentially - another outbreak of ethnic violence.
In 1994, when I was just 2 years old, I was part of the mass exodus of Rwandans who fled to Zaire (now Congo).
We had lost both Hutu and Tutsi family members or relatives and were fleeing the massacres carried out by both extremist militias and Kagame's rebel forces.
Kagame's forces invaded Zaire under the pretext of prosecuting the perpetrators of the genocide.
They carried out indiscriminate massacres of tens of thousands of people, including many innocent civilians, and dismantled refugee camps in both Rwanda and Zaire.
Years later, the 2010 United Nations mapping report detailed allegations that troops under Kagame's command and their allies may have committed genocide against ethnic Hutu refugees in eastern Congo between 1993 and 2003.
Thirty years after the 1994 genocide, which triggered an exodus of more than 2 million people from the country, there are still significant numbers of Rwandan refugees in various African countries, including Malawi, the Republic of Congo and Zambia.
This exodus primarily affected Hutus and opponents of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and its ongoing massacres.
Today, many of these refugees, including survivors of the 1994 atrocities, live in fear of being persecuted by the long arm of the Rwandan government or forced to return - whether through legal extradition or kidnapping.
Hundreds of thousands of Rwandan refugees can no longer return to their homeland
According to estimates by the UN Refugee Agency, there were still 207,956 Rwandan refugees living in the Congo alone in November 2023.
The UNHCR admits that this estimate significantly underestimates the actual number of Rwandan refugees, particularly stateless people, due to the lack of a proper civilian registration system and the fear and threats they face.
People demonstrate in London against the British government's plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.
© Tom Pilgrim/dpa
A UNHCR-funded study found that the vast majority of Rwandan long-term refugees in Africa's Great Lakes region are stateless, meaning they are no longer recognized by Rwanda as Rwandan nationals.
Consequently, these hundreds of thousands of refugees and their descendants are not even included in the figures reported by UNHCR.
These refugees lack basic protection and humanitarian assistance and are regularly targeted by attacks by the Rwandan government-backed M23 rebel movement.
Although UNHCR has been implementing programs to facilitate the voluntary return of Rwandan refugees from Congo to Rwanda for more than a decade, these plans have consistently failed despite political and financial support from international donors and Rwanda's bilateral partners.
Rwanda's past still has an impact today
Rwandans have never had free and fair elections and cannot freely choose their leaders.
But large numbers of Rwandans have voted with their feet to flee political oppression, unemployment and a lack of opportunity due to the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a tiny kleptocratic elite.
Despite all the PR gloss surrounding Rwanda's so-called success story, the sad truth is that Rwanda under Kagame has not truly reconciled with itself.
Instead, the memory of the genocide has become a political tool for the Kagame regime to enrich itself and cling to power indefinitely.
Members of the Hutu majority, including children, are constantly stigmatized as incorrigible bearers of a vaguely defined “genocidal ideology,” while essentially living under an official policy of collective punishment.
Kagame's regime has also persecuted many Tutsis who opposed his rule, and many of them have suffered all kinds of vile slander, prison sentences, or death under mysterious circumstances.
Many Rwandans feel neither safe nor secure.
Serious observers in the UK concerned about the long-term viability of the Sunak government's preferred policies would do well to consider the cyclical pattern of violent clashes caused by the inability or refusal of those in power in Kigali to control the nation to reconcile and facilitate the return of Rwandan refugees from the country.
Rwanda couldn't take in Britain's refugees
Kagame's projection of generosity and capacity in accepting foreign refugees is not new and obscures the fact that the Rwandan government has little experience in permanently housing or integrating large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers.
Most foreign refugees and asylum seekers who land in Rwanda use the country as a transit station on the way to a third, safer country.
Foreign Policy Logo © ForeignPolicy.com
In 2017, Kagame's government offered to take in up to 30,000 human trafficking victims trapped in Libya.
But most of these migrants did not stay long: in September 2019, the Rwandan government signed an agreement with the UNHCR and the African Union to establish an emergency transit mechanism for refugees and asylum seekers from Libya.
Under the arrangement, evacuees live in temporary United Nations-run facilities in the Rwandan town of Gashora before being permanently relocated to safe countries such as Canada.
Of the more than 2,000 refugees and asylum seekers who were flown from Libya to Rwanda between September 2019 and December 2023, more than 1,200 - almost two thirds - have been resettled in safe third countries.
Even of the 4,000 asylum seekers who left Israel for Rwanda and Uganda between 2013 and 2018, very few remained in Rwanda, according to the UNHCR.
He expressed concern that “these individuals have not found adequate security or a lasting solution to their plight and that many have subsequently attempted to travel onwards within Africa or to Europe.”
Great Britain wants to send refugees to Rwanda despite the ongoing great risks
The UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Treaty contains a provision that relies on the Rwandan government to implement legal reforms to address the lack of protection against the risk of refoulement.
This was a concern raised by both the UNHCR in 2022 and the UK Supreme Court when it rejected an earlier version of the plan in November 2023.
However, in a legal analysis published on Monday, the UNHCR noted that it "has not identified any changes in asylum granting practices that would address the concerns raised in its 2022 analysis and in the detailed evidence submitted to the Supreme Court."
The treaty also provides that both those who do not apply for asylum and those who are denied asylum in Rwanda have the right to permanent residence in the country.
The new UK-Rwanda agreement, signed by British Home Secretary James Cleverly with the Rwandan government, provides for the establishment of a monitoring committee and an appeal body with judges from around the world to address concerns previously raised by the UK Supreme Court became.
While these ideas could theoretically protect migrants, it is hypocritical for Britain to send its own unwanted migrants to Kigali while the pleas of Rwandan refugees to return to their homeland were never heard.
Rwanda deal ignores the problem of Rwandan refugees
Voluntary return can only take place if the Rwandan government shows interest in honest dialogue and reconciliation with a view to a negotiated political solution.
Political opposition leader Victoire Ingabire has long advocated for a comprehensive Rwandan dialogue to explore such options and facilitate the return of refugees.
But the Rwandan government continues to refuse this dialogue.
The British should not let Kagame fool them into believing that Rwanda is a safe or viable destination for the migrants the UK is rejecting.
More than the money, the deal is a gift that allows Kagame to shut down talk of returning his own refugees once and for all.
Worse, by ignoring the problem of Rwandan refugees and failing, as previous leaders have done, to create the conditions for their safe return, Kagame is preparing Rwanda for the next round of violent clashes in the country that will endanger both Rwandans and migrants that the United Kingdom sends there.
The UK and Rwanda's international partners share some of the responsibility if they do not do enough to prevent this.
To the author
Norman Ishimwe Sinamenye
is a Rwandan affairs analyst and president of Jambo Asbl, a Rwandan human rights organization based in Brussels.
He is also one of the co-founders of All For Rwanda, an international movement committed to supporting, protecting and developing a dignified solution for the return of Rwandan refugees to Rwanda.
Twitter (X): @normanishimwe
About the author / About the author / About the authors
We are currently testing machine translations. This article was automatically translated from English into German.
This article was first published in English in the magazine “ForeignPolicy.com” on January 23, 2024 - as part of a cooperation, it is now also available in translation to readers of the IPPEN.MEDIA portals.