by Vanessa Yu on 29/08/22
Image source: Rwanda policy High Court challenge to be heard in September - Impartial Reporter
Background of the event
The Conservative government pushed through a relentless plan, the Rwanda policy, on April 13th to suppress the influx of asylum seekers into British soils. The UK government signed a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda, an African country with an autocratic government notorious for its disdain for human rights, to deport refugees arriving at the British shore to Rwanda to claim asylum there. Rwanda gets money in return.
The former PM, Boris Johnson, and Home Secretary, Priti Patel, paradoxically justified their scheme in the name of humanity. They portrayed the policy as a “humanitarian measure”, which aims to deter and discourage refugees from putting themselves in danger by crossing the English Channel illegally and to break up the “evil trade in human cargo” ran by people-smugglers. Whilst their argument does stand in terms of the danger involved in trafficking migrants in small inflatable boats, this policy should be denounced for being inhumane and possibly illegal as pointed out by refugee groups and some government officials.
What is happening now/current events
A report by MPs from the Home Affairs Committee suggests that the announcement of the policy has not deterred illegal entry to the UK, but has rather induced a rise in crossings – 444 people made their journeys on June 14th alone.
Charities and lawyers representing the asylum seekers launched legal claims against the policy. Hence, some refugees had been removed from the first flight to Rwanda. The Court of Appeal however rejected the application for an injunction to obstruct the flight altogether. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. Yet, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg eventually put a halt to the flight upon having ruled that an Iraqi man would face “a real risk of irreversible harm” if he was sent to Rwanda – he should not be deported until the High Court had scrutinised the legality of the policy in July. The judgment caused further legal challenges; other individuals also won their appeals against removal. Ms Patel expressed her disappointment and vowed to prepare for the next flight ahead.
The UK Supreme Court was due to hear an application for judicial review in July to decide on the legality of the government’s policy. This has now been postponed to September. Should the judges rule that the policy is unlawful, any refugee sent to Rwanda could be brought back.
What this means to the local community and wider implications
Devising the Rwanda policy is seen to be a regression of the UK’s effort to help refugees and to protect human rights. Britain was one of the first countries to endorse the Refugee Convention of 1951, which provided for the countries’ obligations to protect fugitives who had arrived at their territories from persecution. The UK has historically been a leader in dealing with refugees. It has long been proud of its efforts made in assisting asylum seekers. However, the government has now failed them. It will no longer be welcoming them with open arms. It will instead be shoving them away to an African country 4500 miles away, with one of the most autocratic governments and poorest human rights records, of which the British government itself offered criticisms last year. Yet, upon the announcement of the policy, Mr Johnson claimed that Rwanda is a “dynamic country” and is “one of the safest in the world” when it is clearly far from that. It is extremely poor and has one of Africa’s most repressive governments. The Rwanda policy is in fact the UK government’s attempt in disguise to steer clear of the influx of refugees.
Further, if the plan works, that the UK manages to divert asylum seekers arriving at its shore to Rwanda, the once leader might be signalling to the rest of the rich democratic countries that they, too, may be free from abiding strictly by decades-old conventions. They may follow suit to make deals with poorer countries to offload their refugees to those territories, neglecting human rights concerns and the fact that refugees may face persecution in those countries. This will cause a tip in the balance of the obligations of countries in the world. Those capable of accommodating desperate refugees will be contributing even less than they do today, for money can buy them immunity from asylum claims.
What we can do to help
Aside from engaging in the charities and legal parties that help refugees, we can always voice out to the government or raise awareness in the communities.
Commentators have pointed out alternative ways to discourage people-smuggling activities which could be adopted by the government in place of the Rwanda policy. One of which is establishing legal routes for refugees to cross, such as a humanitarian visa scheme. Instead of blocking out refugees from claiming asylum and shoving them away from borders, the government could suggest safe ways for those people to enter the country. This would echo the said objective of the Rwanda policy, which is to protect refugees from dangerously and illegally crossing the waters to get to the British shore.
Another solution is for Britain to process asylum claims in France. This would wipe out the problems associated with chaos, danger and illegality of crossing the English Channel. Neither would refugees have to wait in appalling conditions for a chance to be smuggled across. The UK government would not have to be signing a gruelling deal with an autocrat, not to mention that it would be upholding the noble principle that protecting refugees is a shared obligation between countries, but never something to buy your way out of.
Sources
BBC News, “Why are asylum seekers being sent to Rwanda and how many could go?”, 16th August 2022
The Economist, “Britain’s deal to shift asylum-seekers to Rwanda is part of a larger trend”, 15th April 2022
The Economist, “Shipping asylum-seekers to Rwanda could wreck the Refugee Convention”, 23rd April 2022
The Economist, “The real test of the government’s Rwanda policy”, 13th June 2022
The Guardian, “UK officials raised concerns over Rwanda policy, documents show”, 19th July 2022
Comments