The Deportation of Migrants From the UK to Rwanda Is a Reality

Rwanda will receive considerable funding in exchange for its availability: 240 million pounds have already been allocated to the Kigali government, which covers part of the expenses related to the deported people but which also finances the development of the country.

Eventually, the plan to deport migrants from the UK will become a reality.On Monday evening – April 22 – the English Parliament approved the bill which provides for the transfer to Rwanda of migrants who entered the country illegally, and in all likelihood the text will receive royal assent in the next few days, officially coming into force.

This is not the first attempt to give a legal basis to the agreement between London and Kigali.

In 2022, a law similar to the one approved in recent days had been presented in Parliament and the United Kingdom had already organized the first flight to Rwanda.

The attempt, however, was stopped by the European Court of Human Rights and later also by the English Supreme Court, which had expressed strong doubts about whether the African country guaranteed acceptable security conditions for asylum seekers expelled from British territory.

The London government decided to proceed anyway, circumventing the obstacle: it did so by declaring Rwanda a safe state by law, and approving the deportation plans on the basis of this “reassurance”. The final approval of the plan represents a significant success for the English government.

In fact, for some time the implementation of the agreement with Rwanda had been placed at the center of the political objectives of the executive led by Rishi Sunak, justifying it as a measure to avoid illegal crossings of the Channel and reduce deaths at sea.

“The law will prevent people from abusing the law by using false human rights claims to block removals. And it makes it clear that the British Parliament is sovereign,” said James Cleverly, secretary of state for home affairs, in welcoming the approval of the law.

The political choice was criticized by many parties.

“Sending refugees to Rwanda represents an ineffective, cruel and expensive approach” underlined Denisa Delić, director of the British section of the International Rescue Committee organisation.

The associations that fight for human rights and for the protection of migrants denounce the very principle of deportation to a third country, regardless of the area of origin.

Furthermore, they highlight how the plan will be extremely costly for London: deporting the first 300 migrants will cost £540 million.

If the United Kingdom’s insistence in approving the law can be explained by the desire to get rid of asylum seekers and limit their arrival in the country, it is more difficult at first sight to understand what Rwanda’s interest is in welcoming the

migrants arriving in Europe.

The fact that Kigali will receive considerable funding in exchange for its availability certainly has an impact: 240 million pounds have already been allocated to the Rwandan government, which cover part of the expenses related to the deported people but which also finance the development of the country.

However, it must be considered that the African state is small, extremely crowded and relatively poor: it does not have particular spaces and resources, and the economic issue does not seem sufficient to explain the choice to welcome new migrants.

The partnership with London must therefore be explained above all by political reasons.

Rwanda represents one of the most prominent countries among African states, perhaps the one that has most been described abroad as a success story.

After the genocide, under the leadership of President Paul Kagame, the country stood out for its ability to be reborn and grow at dizzying rates, with an average GDP growth of 7.4% between 2000 and 2020.

Today,Kigali represents the center of a dynamic and cutting-edge country, often praised for its many differences compared to other capitals on the continent.In recent years, Kagame’s government has shown itself increasingly inclined to carve out a role for Rwanda also on the international stage.It did so by showing a strong military protagonism in the Great Lakes region, but also through various diplomatic initiatives and political agreements.

The reception of migrants must be considered within this scheme: while other states such as Ghana have firmly refused to become the destination for migrants arriving in Europe, Rwanda has instead shown itself available, thus making itself seen as an ally on which Western countries can count.

In addition to the United Kingdom, it did so with Israel, from which thousands of Eritreans and Sudanese actually arrived, and with Denmark, the first European state to consider transferring its migrants abroad.

The deportation of migrants to Rwanda, already problematic in itself, therefore also has consequences on the political situation within the country, ending up strengthening the Kagame regime.

The Rwandan President has governed the country since 2000 with an authoritarian regime in all respects, in which political dissent is little tolerated.

At the same time, however, Kagame is tolerated or even supported because he is the one who assures the West that it can count on a stable, strong Rwanda ready to collaborate on a series of issues, such as migration.