Why is Rwanda taking asylum seekers from Britain?
Because we want to help, President Paul Kagame (64) declared in April, shortly after the announcement of the asylum seekers’ deal with Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government. Asylum seekers who are ‘victims’ of people smugglers can find a dignified refuge in Rwanda. Moreover, Rwanda helps its ‘partner’ Great Britain out of the fire, according to Kagame.
Kagame made his statements during a dinner with foreign diplomats. He explicitly referred to an agreement that Rwanda already made in 2018 with the UN refugee agency UNHCR. According to Kagame, this agreement shows that Rwanda is helping to solve international issues regarding migration and asylum.
Under this agreement with the UNHCR, more than a thousand asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East have flown from Libya to Rwanda in recent years. There they were housed in a special ‘transition center’ more than fifty kilometers from the capital, Kigali. A majority would now have resettled in countries such as Canada or Sweden.
These asylum seekers had largely voluntarily left Libya, where they had found themselves in inhumane conditions during their hoped-for passage to Europe. That is a big difference with asylum seekers from Great Britain. They do not go to Rwanda voluntarily at all. The UNHCR is therefore strongly opposed to the new asylum agreement.
Does President Kagame have more motives?
It looks like that. Rwanda observers assume that Kagame is trying to gain the favor of powerful Western countries. According to a common analysis, in return for his role as a subcontractor on difficult jobs, Kagame expects the international community to swallow some of its criticism of Rwanda’s internal repression.
This repression goes far: the political opposition has been virtually silenced, the press is on a leash and the remaining opponents ‘disappear’ with some regularity. Opponents of Kagame are also not always safe abroad. In seven years, Rwandans have been hunted and attacked in seven countries – ranging from Germany to the United Arab Emirates – the organization Freedom House reported last year. It all seriously tarnishes the reputation of Kagame, who has been hailed by many as the ex-rebel leader who helped shape the reconstruction of Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.
Against this background, Kagame is happy to show his willingness to be of benefit to the West. In the violence-plagued Central African Republic, for example, Rwanda supplies most of the blue helmets for the UN mission Minusca. In Mozambique, Rwanda took action for French interests last year: Rwandan troops chased jihadist fighters away from a mega-gas project of Total, the energy giant from France. Last year, Rwanda also accepted a request from the US to take in a group of Afghan schoolgirls after the Taliban took over Kabul. ‘To the West, Rwanda tries to make itself indispensable,’ said Rwanda observer Kris Berwouts in the Belgian magazine MO†
Where do the ‘British’ asylum seekers end up?
Initially in hotels and bungalows in Kigali, the Rwandan government has announced. The Rwandan capital is known for its order: plastic bags are prohibited, moped riders are obliged to wear helmets and noise pollution is out of the question. A very different environment than the ‘traditional’ refugee camps in Rwanda, where more than 125,000 refugees from neighboring countries such as Burundi and Congo are staying.
The first group of asylum seekers from Britain may be housed in a hostel called Hope, which opened in 2014 especially for Rwandan students orphaned since the 1994 genocide, according to Rwandan media. The site, which was inspected by UK Home Secretary Priti Patel in April, has already sparked controversy. According to British media reports, Rwandan genocide orphans should make way for the asylum seekers.
The bill is paid by the UK taxpayer; Boris Johnson’s government has already set aside more than 140 million euros. The intention is that Rwanda will also use that money to arrange other facilities, such as (vocational) education.
For both Rwanda and Great Britain, it can still be quite a task to deal with all the international media attention. Both countries are committed to making their asylum project look as neat as possible. For example, Rwanda has promised that the asylum seekers will not be ‘locked up’ in their new shelters. At the same time, foreign journalists are not welcome when the asylum seekers arrive, nor are they allowed to visit them in their new accommodation, because of the ‘dignity’ and ‘privacy’ of the newcomers.
What will happen to the asylum seekers in the longer term?
That’s the big question. In many ways, Rwanda and Great Britain are entering uncharted territory with their asylum cooperation. What is clear is that ‘British’ asylum seekers who are officially granted refugee status in Rwanda cannot still go to Great Britain. The trip to Rwanda is emphatically a one-way ticket, a point of strong criticism from human rights organizations who argue that London is flouting asylum rules.
In principle, anyone who receives refugee status in Rwanda can go wherever he or she wants. Recognized refugees are also allowed to work, although Rwanda has a very modest economy. About three quarters of the approximately 13 million inhabitants live on subsistence agriculture and almost half of the inhabitants of ‘the land of a thousand hills’ live in deep poverty.
The application process for refugee status officially takes 45 days, but in practice can take “one to two years,” according to the UNHCR. If an asylum application is refused, an objection can be lodged according to the law. If an objection procedure fails, then the well-known question for asylum seekers remains: ‘voluntarily’ leave – for example to a neighboring country of Rwanda – or stay and seek the informal circuit.