In Europe, the past months have been regarded as showcases of the extents of humanitarian and governmental solidarity, as millions of refugees fleeing the conflict in Ukraine were welcomed across the continent. Such openness towards Ukrainians, however, bitterly highlights the hypocrisy inherent in the differences in treatment of asylum-seekers of other provenances, of which the latest refugee policy of the United Kingdom provides and exemplary instance.
The new Asylum Partnership Arrangement, unveiled by conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson in April 2022, makes any person who entered UK territory illegally from January 1st eligible for deportation to Rwanda, with no disclosure of the specific selection criteria. Each claim for asylum will then be processed in the East African nation and, if accepted, the applicants will be granted refugee-status in Rwanda; were the request to be declined, individuals will face high risks of being returned to the countries from which they were fleeing in the first place – mainly, realities plagued by conflict and persecutions, such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
The scheme is mostly directed to individuals reaching the UK on small boats smuggled through the Channel, who in 2021 amounted to over 28 000. Such figures represent a record high, and are cause for political concern for Johnson’s government, who was elected on a platform which substantively underlined his plans to curb illegal immigration and has been under fire for numerous controversies during the past 3 years. One of the latest, namely the PM’s breach of covid-19 regulations in what has come to be known as “Partygate”, was swiftly left behind after the unveiling of the multimillion pound deal struck with Rwanda, which caused outrage at all levels of society: from public demonstrators and local human rights groups, to authorities such as UNHCR High Commissioner Filippo Grandi and heir to the British throne Prince Charles, countless voices have risen against the relocation plan.
While the Prince’s concern might partially regard the possibility that the controversy around the scheme will overshadow his Commonwealth visit to the country later this month, his critique of the policy is certainly not unfounded. Statements from the most prominent global Human Rights institution have not only commented negatively on the policy, but also provided clear evidence as to why it represents an appalling approach to immigration and could set a dangerous precedent. Amnesty International UK’s Refugee and Migrant Rights Director Steve Valdez-Symonds, for instance, was not the only one to believe the plan to be “shockingly ill-conceived.” While, indeed, few would disagree with the ideological rationale pushed by Johnson, namely that the policy disincentivises the undertaking of a possibly fatal journey through illegal means, Grandi questioned both the means to achieve the goal, and even whether that is the government’s goal in the first place. The High Commissioner then proceeded to highlight that the policy goes against the spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention, of which the UK is a member, particularly stressing the lack of sufficient safeguards and standards that make the transfer of responsibility – and people – to Rwanda unacceptable in the eye of the UN Refugee Agency. Such strong stance against the policy has been likewise taken by Human Rights Watch, which negatively analysed the plan in an official statement describing it as “cruelty itself”, as well as by the Church of England, which rejected the “immoral policy that shames Britain.”
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister and his officials have remained unwavering in their decision to deport asylum seekers to what Johnson has described as “one of the safest countries in the world, globally recognized for its record of welcoming and integrating migrants”, which was upheld by British courts following progressive appeals by human rights activists. Advocacy groups have described the scheme as a mockery of international law and of the humanitarian protections that it grants to refugees, as well as an inhumane waste of time and money; specifically, of the 120 million pounds that were already paid to the Rwandan government for the partnership, supposedly to support the development of the country and contribute to the promise of granting relocated persons “up to five years of training, integration, accommodation, health care” to make sure that they integrate into Rwandan society and thrive.
It is however inevitable to wonder about the use that will be made of such money, given the country’s history of corruption and embezzlement of public funds, as well as its alarming human rights record and the disenchanting evidence from similar policies adopted by other countries. Australia’s relocation program, for instance, which places asylum-seekers in processing centres on the island of Nauru, has been theatre of several abuses and inhumane treatment, leading to the death of 12 people since the kick-off of the scheme in 2013. The conditions in Rwanda are expectable to be considerably worse, given the reports of “extrajudicial killings, suspicious deaths in custody, unlawful or arbitrary detention, torture, and abusive prosecutions” documented by Human Rights Watch’s Universal Periodic Review and even underlined by the UK in a 2021 statement calling for transparent investigations into such crimes. The killing by Rwandan security forces of 12 refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo, protesting a cut in food rations in 2018, can be seen as a clear example of the country’s approach to asylum-seekers, and one of the many reasons why, according to Freedom House, Rwanda scores a mere 22/100 on the Global Freedom Scale.
The “innovative approach, driven by [a] shared humanitarian impulse” which, in reality, appears more as a “refugees for investment” pipeline, in which asylum-seekers are traded as commodities between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, was scheduled to be inaugurated on June 14th with the first flight between London and Kigali. Though High Court and Court of Appeal judges refused to grant injunctions to stop the plane, its initial passenger count of over 100 was progressively slashed thanks to the activity of refugees’ rights groups such as the charity Care4Calais; the final number of passengers, according to lawyers representing the coalition of refugees, was set to be 7. The plane, however, never departed: the plan was halted by the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights, which watches over the compliance of nations with the European Convention on Human Rights, of which the UK is a signatory. On Tuesday night, the Court ruled in favour of one of the refugees set to be reported, an Iraqi man who was found to have the right not to be relocated until at least “three weeks after the delivery of the final domestic decision in his ongoing judicial review proceedings.” The Court’s verdict set forth a chain reaction of legal proceedings in the ECHR and in the UK Court of Appeals which were all successfully resolved in favour of the asylum-seekers. The rulings left no one who could legally be part of the deportation flight, which was accordingly postponed until further notice. The ECHR, in fact, did not yet find the scheme to be contrary to its Convention; rather, it granted an interim injunction to allow for two of the cases to be duly analysed by the Court and tried appropriately under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, while two more claims were denied and one withdrawn.
While final decisions from the Courts will require some time, as the cases shall not be heard before the beginning of July, the change in direction of the UK Court of Appeals in light of the ECHR’s ruling shows the weight of the Court’s opinion and sets the overall tone for the international legal proceedings. At the same time, the reaction of the UK government to the injunctions might ring a familiar bell of alarm: as Home Secretary Priti Patel remarked the soundness of the policy by announcing the beginning of preparations for the next flight, both her words and the Prime Minister’s seemed to put into question the future of the UK as a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights itself. Patel, in fact, has made it clear that she has never been “an advocate of European institutions”, and Johnson was not hesitant in stating his openness to changing “some laws to help [us] as we go along.” In light of the UK’s recent independentist and isolationist political direction showcased in Brexit, which the PM has named as one of the factors which granted the UK the freedom to negotiate the deal with Rwanda in the first place, it is inevitable to wonder whether the next institution for regional integration that the United Kingdom will leave will be the Convention on Human Rights, causing what the human rights group Liberty has described as the “biggest attack on human rights in this country in a generation.”
Bibliography:
Croft, J. (2022, June 14). UK plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda grounded by legal challenges. Retrieved from @FinancialTimes website: https://www.ft.com/content/dcb49b4f-1e9e-4b43-9560-022b2566f923
Andrew Macaskill,Michael Holden. (2022, June 13). UK court allows first migrant deportation flight to Rwanda. Retrieved from Reuters website: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-courts-hear-last-minute-appeals-stop-first-rwanda-deportation-flight-leaving-2022-06-13/
U.K. vows more Rwanda deportation flights after legal setback. (2022, June 15). Retrieved from NPR.org website: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/15/1105161913/u-k-cancels-first-flight-to-deport-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda
UK Plan to Ship Asylum Seekers to Rwanda is Cruelty Itself. (2022, April 14). Retrieved from Human Rights Watch website: https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/14/uk-plan-ship-asylum-seekers-rwanda-cruelty-itself
ECHR. (2022). European Court of Human Rights – ECHR, CEDH, news, information, press releases. Retrieved from Coe.int website: https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
