UK-Rwanda asylum deal deserved a try

Some of these cross the English Channel through France and enter the UK. 

It was hoped that the UK-Rwanda arrangement would begin to relieve some of the social and political pressure the UK faces with the uncontrolled arrival of migrants.

For Rwanda, there would be serious money coming (moreover in forex).

But perhaps more important, Rwanda would gain in stature on the world stage. 

It would become a provider of safety and economic opportunities to distressed foreigners at a level different from the conventional Third World refugee camp and its catalogue of humiliating features.

That would be a substantial achievement for a small and relatively poor country located in the middle of a continent that is generally associated with disorder and infant-like dependency.

The arrangement would present Rwanda as a responsible country, mature and confident enough to partner with a First World country in a cause where points were scored at the expression of soft power rather than making war.

But negotiations for the deal were not easy. Supported by three successive Conservative Party prime ministers and most of their party legislators, the arrangement faced challenge in the courts and was opposed by many Labour MPs, a number of                                                                               human rights organisations and some bishops.

Some argued that Britain had no right to dodge her responsibility towards refugees.

These and others also argued that Rwanda was in any case a serious human rights offender and had no legitimacy as a partner in the scheme; that the supposed beneficiaries would not be safe in that country.

Commenting only on the issue of safety, I believe that there is a misunderstanding.

True, Rwanda is ruled by a hard regime that sees any step towards political liberalisation as a threat to the regime and the country’s stability.

However, like in many African countries ruled with an authoritarian grip, threats to the regime are perceived to be primarily from dissenting citizens, whether they live at home, in neighbouring countries or distant exile.

This distinction is important. It is why a Libyan, Chadian or an Afghan citizen given refuge in Rwanda need not feel the (Rwanda-driven) insecurity of a Rwandan dissident exiled in South Africa or France.

And the school children of UK-sponsored refugees/emigrants residing in Rwanda might be safer from possible wanton gun attacks than British children enrolled in American schools.

Foreigners (especially when they are not distinctly Black) are often amazed at the hospitality – even the near-worship – they receive from African regimes that are otherwise very hard towards their own citizens.

On balance, an arrangement that was peacefully agreed after such a protracted process between two countries should have been given a chance, albeit perhaps with added safeguards to address any remaining concerns.

Scrapping the deal so unceremoniously unduly humiliates Rwanda and presents the UK (not just Labour or Keir Starmer) as unreliable in international agreements.

For its part, Rwanda can learn that it is not enough to be feared and respected at home. There are blessings to be earned, sometimes from unexpected places around the world, by granting her citizens the gift of a more tolerant political environment.