The newly elected Labour government under the leadership of Sir Kier Starmer has ended the UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership. As PM Starmer so bluntly commented, “The Rwanda scheme was dead and buried…” The controversial plan began while Boris Johnson was Prime Minister back in 2022. It was to send asylum seekers who entered the UK illegally to Rwanda. It would be in Rwanda where their claims would be assessed, and if they were credible, the asylum seekers could remain in the small but safe African nation. This plan is similar to the 2001 ‘Pacific Solution’ by Australia that sent thousands of asylum seekers to Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
The deal was criticised, with human rights organisations crying out about UK migration policy and Rwanda. Since its announcement, the agreement was challenged in the courts, eventually being termed unlawful based on Rwanda’s developing judicial sector. The Conservative-led government counteracted this decision by defining Rwanda as safe through the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. However, the UK government would increase the program cost beyond the initial £120 million to an estimated £541 million. Despite PM Starmer’s termination of the deal, at least an estimated £220 million had already been sent to Rwanda. Alain Mukuralinda, Deputy Spokesperson from the Office of the Government Spokesperson, announced that there was no clause within the previous agreement to return any funding.
Why did Rwanda go into this deal?
It should be no surprise to any observer of UK politics that the UK-Rwanda migrant deal would end with a Labour victory. The agreement was deeply partisan, with Rwanda being dragged into the British domestic political arena. While PM Starmer’s decision to terminate it might seem like a victory for critics of the Rwandan government, most Rwandans will not see it as that. While much discussion has been held on the UK’s perception of the deal, very few have tried to listen to Rwandans.
As I wrote before, many Rwandans held different opinions on why they supported the deal. Some supported it as they felt a sense of responsibility not to allow others to suffer the horrible refugee status they had once felt. A majority of Rwandans over the age of thirty have been either refugees or internally displaced persons at one time or another, with many governments not providing them with the opportunities, rights or dignity. Other Rwandans commented on how they saw it as a way to promote Rwandan nationalistic identity through a campaign to help others on the global stage. Working with various governments and global leaders to tackle the global illegal migration crisis increased the sense of national importance. While some commented on the financial opportunities, especially in developing Rwanda’s judicial sector, others were relatively uninterested. The challenges of everyday life overshadow Rwanda’s engagement with the international community.
During a recent trip to Rwanda in June 2024, I discussed the plan’s future with many Rwandans in Kigali. Many were interested in my analysis and its future with the incoming Labour government. As I tried to prepare Rwandans for its upcoming termination, many were seemingly just happy that their country had just been involved. Issues of illegal and legal migration saturate the political landscape of many nations, with Europe being no exception. Since the beginning of the Arab Spring in the early 2000s, hundreds of thousands from North Africa and the Middle East have crossed into Europe. This does not discount those from Africa, especially Eritrea and North Sudan, who trek across the Sahara desert and try to cross the Mediterranean Sea. Many do not make the journey as they either die from the extreme weather elements or are sold into modern slavery.
President Paul Kagame offered a solution for African nations, such as Rwanda, to play a critical role in solving this issue. This solution closely follows the notion of ‘African solutions to African problems’. Additionally, Rwanda already accepts tens to hundreds of thousands of regional refugees. Some Rwandans were proud of their nation’s soft power politics in trying to find a solution to the crisis.
What does this now mean for Rwanda?
The question now is perhaps not what will happen regarding UK-Rwandan relations. There does not seem to be panic about a significant deterioration between Rwanda and the UK, possibly its second most important nation in terms of its foreign relations. What was always important was for the Rwandan government not to be dragged into the domestic arena of British politics.
The bigger question is whether Rwanda’s willingness to participate in such an agreement will elevate it within the international community. The nation already receives praise for its contribution to peacekeeping in nations facing civil strife and terrorism. Its engagement with the UK, along with other countries, in accepting migrants provided it with another opportunity to develop its soft power in the global crisis of legal and illegal immigration.
Despite most nations, especially in the Global North, facing a similar migration crisis, few have offered significant solutions. Many policymakers hold short-term answer of simple deportation rather than developing complex solutions that might require a considerable shift in understanding the global political economy, security and migration. Perhaps Rwanda provided another short-term answer, having asylum seekers sent to their country, but it was at least a relatively new answer to the crisis. However, some used Rwanda’s willingness to accept migrants as a way to attack its government rather than trying to find an actual solution to the crisis.
Either way, Rwanda illustrated itself as a nation willing to try to find a solution to a global crisis. Despite PM Starmer ending the UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, other countries and institutions, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), will continue working to send asylum seekers and migrants to Rwanda.
Jonathan R Beloff 