Still scratching my head about UK’s Rwanda asylum deal

It was probably for the best that Rwandan President Paul Kagame was in the middle of a three-day visit to Jamaica when news broke of the extraordinary asylum deal Rwanda had struck with the United Kingdom (UK).

With no opportunity to grill the Rwandan leader, commentators had to fill in the blanks as to why this East African country, still bearing the scars from its recent history as the scene of one of the most devastating genocides in modern memory, would be a part of Britain’s new asylum strategy.

We might have found 120 million ones. Coincidentally, the value in pounds of the sweetener UK Home Secretary Priti Patel has offered for Rwanda to take Britain’s ‘undesirables’. These would be initially single men arriving on English shores via the Channel. Patel wants us to believe this move will break up the smuggling rings that are responsible for transporting many of the thousands who attempt the journey from the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere via French camps each year.

Forget the elements of this deal that clearly make no sense. For example, Rwanda will ultimately have to take responsibility for these failed asylum seekers and after being guests of Kigali (for the five years in which the successful claimants are supported), what is to stop them from making their way back to Europe in some capacity?

CONTROVERSIAL

And let’s not even spend too much time thinking about the impact that this may have on the citizens of Rwanda and African refugees who have fled neighbouring conflicts in the hopes of finding some kind of safety. We’re already hearing stories of Rwandan genocide orphans being told to vacate properties in readiness of the arrival of UK-funded asylum seekers.

Home Office ministers and advisers were said to have warned the Home Secretary that this deal was neither cost-effective nor showed any tangible benefits that the minister herself had to take personal responsibility for this controversial initiative.

It’s not just bleeding hearts and do-gooders like myself who could clearly see not just the ethical and logistical issues with this Rwandan asylum plan, but even senior members of the Church of England called the move ‘unchristian’, with the UN’s Refugee Agency saying Patel was outsourcing Britain’s global obligations, and that the move could be unlawful.

Patel is just the latest in a long line of Conservative home secretaries who have fostered the ‘hostile environment’ policy on the UK, essentially making life as difficult as possible for those either seeking refuge, asylum or a better life. The ultimate goal is to make life so unbearable, people simply go elsewhere.

I won’t bore you with the chronological turning of the immigration screws in the United Kingdom, but outsourcing a portion of its global responsibilities for those who may have risked their lives to seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom to Rwanda is simply another deterrent, as far as this administration is concerned, and the £120m price tag simply the cost of doing business.

Juxtapose the treatment being meted out to those who will be sent for processing in Rwanda versus the diplomatic red carpet that was laid out for those fleeing the conflict in Ukraine. The UK government initiated an actual ‘Home for Ukraine’ scheme, where it advertised for those who are in a position to host a family or a single individual from the country, and, wait for it … the government would pay YOU £350 per month to do so.

A number of parliamentarians have already publicly signed up to host Ukrainians. Some are sitting on the same front bench as their colleagues advocating for asylum seekers to be given a one-way ticket to East Africa. Apparently the appetite for charity decreases with the melanin of the person in need.

The public are not fooled by the stark difference. Bombs dropping on San’a must be as painful as those falling on Kyiv, but don’t ask the country‘s current home secretary to make that distinction. As has been widely mentioned, it seems the UK didn’t have a resource or refugee problem, it has a racism one.

President Kagame’s trip to Jamaica should’ve resulted in positive headlines about the ever-growing links that are being developed between the Caribbean and the African continent. Instead, most of the coverage focussed on this new asylum deal, and it’s clear to see why.

I have been told by many who have had the opportunity to visit Rwanda that despite its troubled history, it’s a beautiful, rapidly developing nation with enormous potential for growth. This critique of Britain outsourcing its immigration issues should not feel like a slight on the East African country, and, in fact, my hope is that those who may have ended up in Rwanda - after initially trying to get settled in the UK - will find a way of creating a new chapter for themselves and their loved ones.

This story is another painful reminder that at the very heart of this conversation, it’s about Britain making a political mess and somewhere, somebody in the global South gets tasked with cleaning it up.

Amina Taylor is a journalist and broadcaster. She is the former editor of Pride magazine and works as producer, presenter and correspondent with Press TV in London.