On Thursday, March 21, 91 refugees arrived in Rwanda from Libya. They were refugees from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, and South Sudan who had been trying to get into Europe but instead got stuck in Libya. This is the 17th group of asylum seekers who have been evacuated from Libya to Rwanda since 2019 under the Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) programme. According to Rwanda’s Ministry of Emergency Management and the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, 6,000 people have come to Rwanda since then. Of these, 1,600 have already been resettled in third countries in Europe and North America. ALSO READ: Over 6,000 refugees ‘safely resettled’ from Rwanda in 2023 The ETM arrangement with Rwanda has been in operation for the past five years and has worked well so far. To my knowledge, none of the asylum seekers has reported any serious incident of mistreatment, abuse, or discontent. None has complained of lack of safety or security. In fact, all parties – asylum seekers, UNHCR, Rwanda and prospective host countries – are satisfied with it. ALSO READ: UNHCR keen on renewing Libya asylum seekers deal with Rwanda Which is why more keep coming and why we have not been swamped with screams and other horrible noises of disapproval or condemnation. On March 21, the Senate of Rwanda voted to ratify the United Kingdom-Rwanda Asylum Partnership treaty under which people seeking asylum in the UK would be sent to Rwanda where their applications would be processed. The treaty was signed in Kigali on December 5, 2023 and stems from an earlier April 2022 MOU, the Migration Economic Development Partnership. The first plan faced opposition and legal challenges almost immediately, ending up in the UK Supreme Court, which in November 2023 ruled it unlawful and questioned Rwanda’s safety. Following that ruling, the UK and Rwanda signed a new treaty on migration in December 2023. The UK government subsequently tabled a bill in parliament, which in January 2024 the House of Commons passed. ALSO READ: Timeline: UK-Rwanda migration partnership At the same time that the latest group of migrants from Libya arrived in Rwanda and the Senate approved the UK-Rwanda migration plan, the UK parliament was still playing ping pong with the migration bill (Rwanda Safety bill). It was still making its way back and forth between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. No one is winning or ready to concede defeat or accept compromise. As the bickering among the political class and humanitarian lobby, and the back-and-forth movement of the bill between the Commons and Lords continues, the fate of the asylum seekers remains uncertain. ALSO READ: People smugglers exploit UK court ruling to lure in prospective migrants – reports All this wrangling is bemusing to most Rwandans who see the issue as a straightforward moral and practical matter. They see the plan as a well-intentioned attempt to mend a broken global migration system that has failed to protect the vulnerable but instead empowers criminal smuggling gangs. For Rwandans, this is only another humanitarian offer their country is making, in keeping with its readiness to open its doors to people in distress and help them get a chance to build a new life. Rwandans are only waiting for the British to resolve their differences and then welcome the asylum seekers. ALSO READ: Kigali challenges UK Supreme Court’s “unsafe third country” claim Is it possible that all these bickering groups in the UK are blind to what goes on in Rwanda regarding migrants? Do they see or hear nothing about the life in Rwanda of migrants rescued from Libya and where they go after? It is difficult to believe they cannot. What with all their vaunted information gathering systems and the fact that it is done in the open, in collaboration with the UNHCR, and does not require specially trained eyes or sophisticated equipment to notice. ALSO READ: We must give Rwanda-UK partnership a chance to work, says senior UK lawmaker They actually do. Even the BBC does. Last week, for the first time in a long time, I heard a BBC correspondent report correctly on Rwanda’s preparedness to receive migrants from UK. Their Africa correspondent, Barbara Plett Usher, reported on the excellent accommodation waiting for them and the warm reception they will get from Rwandans. If the BBC can see the evidence of Rwanda’s readiness and facilities for the migrants and broadcast it, it must be really good. Probably beyond expectation and better than back home. But even with this proof from a usually negative source, but one they are sure to believe, opponents of the UK-Rwanda migrants plan still will not accept it. The opposition cannot believe it because Rwanda is not a safe country for the migrants, as they allege. The continued arrival of refugees from Libya and their resettlement in third countries shows it is not. Nor because there are no appropriate infrastructure and other facilities for theme to lead decent lives. The evidence discounts that. It is not the high principles they cite that drive their opposition either. ALSO READ: Twelve things about historic Rwanda-UK migration deal It is largely the politics for the political class and economics for the humanitarian lobby and other interest groups. And because the Rwanda safety issue is looking increasingly untenable, fresh obstacles are being erected. The latest are concerns about the high cost of the Home Secretary’s trip to Rwanda to sign the treaty last December. It was reported that James Cleverly spent 165,561 pounds on a chartered plane. The cost of sending migrants to Rwanda is also being waved around. Those doing that conveniently do not mention the cost of keeping them in the UK while their applications are being processed. Meanwhile, the parliamentary ping pong game goes on. Rwanda still waits, ready to receive the migrants when all this is sorted out. If it is, well and good for everyone. If it is not, the country will move on, sad that a humanitarian opportunity to alleviate human suffering has been spurned. Asylum seekers will, of course, still make the perilous journey to the UK and force themselves on the conscience at least...
