The U.K. government was due to begin its first deportation flight to remove asylum-seekers to the East African country of Rwanda on June 14, 2022, exactly two months after signing the U.K.-Rwanda agreement. The asylum-seekers were from several war-torn and politically unstable countries, including Syria, Sudan and Iran.
Each year, thousands of people – many fleeing repressive governments or poverty – attempt to cross the English Channel in fragile boats in the hope of starting a new life in the U.K.
Boris Johnson, the U.K. prime minister, defended the U.K.-Rwanda deal in June 2022, saying it would “remove the illegal cross-Channel trafficking of people whose lives are being put at risk.”
In exchange for Rwanda receiving the deportees, the U.K. has paid the country about US$142 million to cover the initial costs of operating the program as well as economic development projects in Rwanda.
The U.K. deportees were expected to integrate their lives into Rwandan social communities.
But the first Rwanda deportation flight did not take off as planned.
Deterring refugees and asylum-seekers
Such measures are most often issued in cases where there is imminent risk of death or torture.
Member states are bound by the decisions of the Court, and its rulings are enforced by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe – Europe’s leading human rights organization.
But instead of abiding by the decision, the U.K. government not only stressed its commitment to deportation flights, it also signaled its intention to pull out of the European Court of Human Rights.
As a scholar of refugees and postwar reconstruction, I see the deportation flights to Rwanda as part of a growing list of what are euphemistically known as migrant deterrence practices. These practices are used by Western countries to deter future migration of mainly people of color from countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Oceania, collectively known as the Global South.
In exchange for money paid to the receiving country, asylum-seekers are sent to those poorer countries to enable wealthier nations to circumvent international legal obligations to those seeking asylum.
The use of countries like Rwanda by Western states is on the rise.
Since 1992, Australia has had a mandatory detention policy for “unauthorized” arrivals, which have included asylum-seekers.
This has been the case even if arrivals applied for asylum in mainland Australia immediately upon arrival.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “externalization of Australia’s asylum obligations has undermined the rights of those seeking safety and protection and significantly harmed their physical and mental health.”
They each provide financial aid packages to the respective low-income countries in exchange for preventing migrant mobility and absorbing deported asylum-seekers.
Thus far, Austria, Denmark and the Flemish far-right in Belgium have welcomed the U.K.-Rwanda agreement with the hope that more European states will seek partnerships with countries outside the continent to address irregular immigration.
Johnson’s resignation on July 7, 2022, is not expected to halt the U.K. government’s plans to continue deportations to Rwanda. But in a new turn of events, Rwanda said on July 22 that it can only accommodate 200 deported asylum-seekers and will not be able to stop their efforts to cross the English Channel again.
The 2022 Nationality and Borders Act
Deportations to Rwanda are part of the U.K.‘s 2022 Nationality and Borders Act, a law that drastically changed citizenship and asylum rules in the U.K.
In addition to deportations, the act allows the government to strip citizenship from British people without notice for reasons related to, among other things, national security or counterterrorism.
The 2022 Nationality and Borders Act also allows for the criminal prosecution of those who cross the English Channel on small boats to seek asylum.
The U.N. Refugee Agency has criticized the legislation on which the act is based for being at “odds with the United Kingdom’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention.” These obligations include “not expelling refugees who are lawfully in the territory except on grounds of national security or public order.”
Back into chaos
Deportations under such conditions are controversial because they are violations of the principle of non-refoulement in international refugee law.
The goal of the principle is to prevent individuals from being returned to countries where they have fled and may still be in danger of torture, persecution or death.