Introduction
Ok friends, I have another University assignment due, and in true ADHD fashion I have a tangent I simply cannot get out of my head. It is semi-related to my assignment and so I can’t seem to write the assignment sans the tangent, so I thought I would try to make the tangent a blog post then maybe I could finish the damned assignment.
This will probably be quite a political post, with some cursing. Okay, okay, fine – Sailors on shore leave would blush at my cursing in this post! But in my defence, I am more than ‘a little angry’. I’m shocked, abhorred, bewildered and somehow, despite this governments propensity for ‘showing us who they are’ I am still somewhat alarmed the levels they can sink to.
Key Concepts and Definitions:
Usually, I start out by making sure the key concepts and terms are clear, so we can continue on the same page, and this post will be no different. I know my readers have a myriad of different backgrounds, so I’ll explain a little about the UK government, and some of our quirks etc.
The constitution in the United Kingdom is not a ‘codified constitution’, sourcing it’s constitutional principles and laws from a bunch of different places, rather than one single place. This can be good, it has increased flexibility to grow alongside the society, but it has drawbacks too with fewer protections in place to prevent the citizens protections being repealed by the administration. The UK government is split up into three ‘branches’, each branch has a distinct area of competency, the ‘administrative’ branch, the ‘legislative’ branch, and the ‘judicial’ branch. The administration comprises the elected prime minister and his cabinet of ministers, they make policy. The legislative branch make legislation through the Houses of Parliament comprised of the House of Commons and House of Lords(2), and the Judiciary make up the court system. This split is intended to ensure that no one part of government has too much power, it helps prevent the tyranny Europe once saw and the subsequent bloody revolutions when Monarchy’s ruled supreme and the common people were powerless. The separation of powers is designed to have integrated ‘checks’ and ‘balances’, with each branch ensuring the other keeps to its lane, so to speak (3).
When the administration or other public body make a decision which is challenged, it is reviewed under a function called ‘judicial review’, where a high court considers the case against certain criteria. They do not replace the decision where they find it to be unlawful, instead work under the presumption that decision are meant to comply with legal and ethical obligations, and return the decision to the original body whom made it to re-make it – this time in compliance!(4) If you would like to read more about Judicial review, the Public Law Project ‘Guide Series – An Introduction to Judicial Review’ is a really great, concise, and well-explained place to start!
You guys still with me? I know, you didn’t sign up for a constitutional and administrative law class! It’ll be important, I promise. So, now that parts over, we need to discuss the different types of people who enter a foreign country hoping to stay and become residents. Migration is the movement of individuals or groups of people, this refers to the movement of, for example, one moving from Essex to Scotland, or from England to America. Migrants are different to refugees, and the two terms are not interchangeable but may have some overlap. A migrant might be forced to move to escape a natural disaster, join their family, etc. Refugees on the other hand are fleeing to save their lives or ensure their freedom is preserved, they have no alternative, and although both categories might often employ the same routes, modes and networks of transport, the distinction is imperative to ensure the right protections and responsibilities are applied to the right people (5).
The Law around refugees or asylum seekers – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
The law surrounding refugees is quite clear and well established, its foundation in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 14 – “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” (6)(a). Within this, until the countries government has processed the asylum seekers application, the individual is considered an asylum seeker(3). An individual making an application for asylum will have a fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a political social group, according to the 1951 United Nations Convention (6) Relating to the Status of Refugees. Regional refugee instruments have been used to build upon this foundation, referencing additional ‘objective’ situations where one may flee their homeland, such as ‘external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order’ in the 1969 OAU refugee convention (7). Most importantly, The 1951 Convention stipulates that, subject to narrowly interpretable exception, refugees should not be punished for their illegal entry or stay. It specifically recognises that the seeking of asylum often necessitates people breach the law in order to seek safety, and provides various safeguards against expelling refugees. This principle is so fundamnetal it has its own term, ‘non-refoulment’, with no reservations or derogations made to it, no refugee may be returned against their wishes in any manner, to a territory where they fear threats to life of freedom (7). The United Kingdom of Great Britain is one such signatory country, meaning under international law, we signed up to comply with the Convention rights and responsibilities concerning refugee – yet here we are treating them as though they’re barely human!
According to an article in Reuters written by Michael Holden, in December of this year, Britain is currently spending more than 3 billion (8) pounds a year processing asylum applications, 8 million each day on housing migrants awaiting a decision (8), and the backlog of asylum applications hit a record high of more than 134,000 (1), which climbs even higher at 175,457 if you factor in dependents (8). In April 2022, Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the UK at the time and leader of the Conservative Party, agreed the Rwanda Scheme in a bid to prevent migrant channel crossings. I don’t know about anyone else, but I find those statistics a little startling, but perhaps that’s just me.
These statistics are especially interesting when considering that, according to data from the Norwegian Refugee Council, at the end of 2022 around 89.3 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide(9). Of these, 27.1 million were refugees(9), while 53.2 million were internally displaced(9). Where did they go? The UK government would have you believe they came here, but that would be misleading. 72% of refugees live in countries neighbouring their country of origin(9), the UK is home to approximately 1% of the 27.1 million forcibly displaced refugees(9). While that number is still large, around 271,000 people, when viewed as part of the larger picture it is far less than the 6.8 million(9) or more fleeing conflict in Syria(9) , countless more face displacement within the countries borders.
But why, why Rwanda?
Despite all that, I keep returning to one question: Why Rwanda? Of all the countries you could choose, why there? It really is a question I’ve been pondering since I had first heard about the United Kingdom’s plan. It seemed like such a random pick, plucked out of nowhere? You know that feeling when you get a few lines of a song, or a question stuck in your head, laying awake at night rolling it around your head? That!
The current government has made it crystal clear that they’re hot for the topic, and really want to find a fix, suitable or not – and it seems they went for not! But…why Rwanda, I keep coming back to it. Why. Rwanda. Why a country that had a genocide just four years after I was born, in 1994? Why a country whose human rights issues are concerning to this day?
A quick Rwandan history primer:
The 1994 Rwandan genocide might feel like a long time ago, I’m sure, but for some context here’s what you should know. In April 1994 Juvenal Habyarimana, President of Rwanda at the time, was shot down over Kigali, and killed (10). In Rwanda at the time, there were two main ethnic groups, the Tutsi who were the minority, and the Hatu whom made up the majority(11). President Habyarimana was a Hatu, and his death triggered a 100-day campaign of blood-shed and death(11). The true death toll of the bloodshed is difficult to calculate, but according to an article ‘Counting the Rwandan Victims of War and Genocide: Concluding Reflections’ the academics estimate between 500,000-2,000,000 Tutsi deaths. The world was shocked by the events that unfolded, yet no country moved to intervene, in fact the United Nations voted on April 21 to reduce it’s peacekeeping troop presence at a crucial and much needed time. The UN reversed it’s decision on May 17th, but were not immediately deployed, by the time the French deployed ‘operation Turquoise’ into Rwanda to establish a safe zone supported by UN troops, it was June 22 with the conflict finally ending July 18/19(13). It’s estimated that between 250,000-500,000 Tutsi women were raped during the genocide, with the deliberate infection of HIV/AIDS transmitted by the perpetrators leveraged as a weapon, according to a report by Human Rights Watch Women’s Rights Project, called ‘Shattered Lives – Sexual Violence During the Rwandan genocide and it’s Aftermath’.(13)
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, much?:
But then it hit me, it isn’t why Rwanda. It’s why not Rwanda. In the moments when Rishi boldly, and somewhat foolishly, stated he would repeal the human rights act it hit me! This government does not give a single fuck about human rights, their protection or, their importance. They simply don’t care about them, except to remove them when they are in path of a goal they wish to achieve. The question “why Rwanda” only occurs if you value intrinsic human rights and protections: But when you don’t? Rwanda is simply another country, and perhaps a better choice of one with fewer limitations! While the conservatives patted themselves on the back for a brilliant idea and a job well done, I had to wonder if anyone realised that the Human Rights act 1998 wasn’t a fucking pick’n’mix stand at Wilko’s? You can’t remove the rights for just this group, instead, by repealing the act in totality the administration would be cart blanche removing all protections for the whole country. If you’ve ever wondered what a lack of human rights protection looks like, Rwanda gives a remarkably reprehensible illustration of a country lacking them. Lets take a look, shall we?
In a world where you can be anything, don’t be Rwanda:
Political dissidents are frequently arrested there for speaking out against the current regime, the Rwandan Patriotic Front. Their leader, President Kagame, will deploy a range of extrajudicial measures against real or perceived critics. These include, but are not limited in creativity to, enforced disappearances, torture, extortion, threats, harassment, and more according to Human Rights Watch article “Join Us Or Die” published in October 2023 (14).
Lewis Mudge, the Central Africa director at the Human Rights Watch, explains that this kind of action is not new for Rwanda, they have a track record(14). Indeed, one only needs to take a look at their human rights reports and ratings, their news stories from outside of the country about the country to see a frightening trend of swift, intolerant and objectively abusive reactions against those who have spoken up. This is a long standing and abhorrent tradition, one that needs to end.
The political predilections of Rwanda are nuanced in token ways, the illusion of democracy is interwoven throughout their elections, while the discerning eye upon looking deeper will notice opposing parties are assassinated, banned, or arrested. Critics are silenced or forcibly disappeared, who knows the fate they ultimately meet as journalism and freedom of press is not a right Rwandans enjoy. Somewhat ironically, President Kagame earned a reputation after joining Yoweri Museveni’s forces fighting for Rwandan independence from Belgium, as being incorruptible. During Kagame’s 2003 presidential run, he downplayed the 1994 Genocide, portraying himself as Rwandan rather than Hutu, all the while engaging in aggressive tactics against his Tutsi rivals, arresting those opposing him, and any supporters. Some reports suggest he even forced some candidates to withdraw from the race entirely – it’s unsurprising he won by a landslide, in what was Rwanda’s first multiparty election. Kagame has created and fostered such an insidiously successful scene of silence that even those who have fled keep quiet, terrified they’ll be sought out, or their loved ones still in Rwanda might be targeted instead(14) The same Join Us Or Die article explains the Rwandan government even uses global law enforcement, judicial mechanisms, extradition requests, and Interpol ‘Red Notices’ to return critics or dissidents back to Rwanda. As Rwanda has gained greater stage time internationally, almost every international institution has completely failed to see what is in front of them, even the United Nations one of the largest peacekeeping institutions found themselves swooning by Rwanda’s effective ‘lovebombing’. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, relentless reprehensible violations on intrinsic human rights were playing out, barely obscured(14).
Britain’s plan:
The plan was simple on paper, two goals: to reduce the number of people entering the country via small boat, and equally to reduce the number who would ultimately apply for asylum and settle in the United. Kingdom. Objectively, however, it has failed to do either in quite spectacular fashion – which seems pretty on brand for this ‘New Conservative Party’.
The whole thing has been mired in legal issues ever since, scrutinised under judicial review and the European Court of Human Rights. Last month the UK Supreme Court held unanimously that the scheme was unlawful, Rwanda was not a safe third country, and migrants were at risk of being sent back to their homelands where they would be at risk of mistreatments. Despite that, like a headstrong toddler heading towards catastrophe, skipping all the way, the UK signed up for a five-year partnership agreement, upgraded from a non-binding ‘partnership’ to a formal ‘treaty’ just this year in December 2023 (15).
Despite the scheme seeing the extraordinary sum of zero. None. Nada people deported under its banner(15), the scheme has already transferred a cash infusion of over 140 Million pounds to Rwanda. According to the Home Office 2022/23 Budget, the break down is £120 Mil for a new ‘Economic Transformation and Integration Fun’ created as part of the MEDP, they consider this an ‘initial investment, but don’t specify what Britain is investing in. Then £20 Mil as an advance payment to support ‘initial set up costs of the asylum processing arrangements under the MEDP, credit anticipated for the future asylum and operational costs. So what was the 20mil for? It’s all just a little vague for my liking, and if it were a private project, I’d be fine with not knowing the details. But it isn’t a private project, is it? It’s a tax-payer-funded project, one involving very traumatised vulnerable human beings, who probably do not speak English particularly well and are fleeing who knows fucking-what to reach safety only to be shipped (or planed? is planed better?) off to another fucking third country, which isn’t even safe, but even if it were safe, it isn’t set up to accommodate them! (16, pg 76) An article from LBC on the Rwanda partnership quoted Rwandan Government official Yolande Makolo, she explained there is only one facility with a capacity of 200 asylum seekers at present, and would not confirm an exact number, there’s also no specified number in the partnership agreement terms, either (19).
Emergency Bills?
The Rwanda Bill? Treaty? Act? Whatever they’re calling it, and they’ve used all three in the official publication currently making its way through the houses of Parliament.
Unsurprisingly Rishi Sunak is unimpressed by the outcome of the judicial review, in true petulant fashion he has thrown his toys out of the pram. If no one else will tell him he’s a good boy, he’ll do it himself! His bill has been shot down incompatible with the rights and a bunch of other things(17). The left is pissed he tried to do this at all, the right is pissed he was too ‘soft’ (weirdly, what do they want him to do, execute them on sight in their little floatie boats?!). He is a man sinking fast, so he floats a new idea: emergency legislation. Yes, I know, the puns are awful but this is the only way I can make it through this entirely bizarre and ridiculous situation without losing what is left of my mind!
okay, so this bill is currently in the house of commons, passed it’s second reading, which means it has to pass the committee stage, report stage, and third reading, then it must follow the same stages in the house of lords, after which it will have any amendments considered, and if all is well, receive ‘royal assent’ which is a royal prerogative power the Crown retains – rarely is this refused, it’s more convention than substance at this point but it does very occasionally happen (20).
But almost immediately, the immigration minister fucking quit.(21). I honestly can not blame them, I’d have quit at this point too, just fuck this, and that, and you, and you, and entirely fuck all of you, I am out! I don’t think you could pay me enough to be even a fly on the wall at this point.
So this bill states in Section 01.01 that the purpose of the act is to prevent and deter unlawful migration, particularly unsafe and illegal entrance, by allowing the government to remove people entering via those ways, and send them over to the Republic of Rwanda(20). . They had to make this act in addition to the primary one to legislate that Rwanda is safe. Let that sink in. No one else with any authority, anywhere in the world is willing to state that Rwanda is a safe country.
An article on the emergency legislation by Reuters(22) explains that in the Supreme Court ruling, the court said that the plan would infringe on the commitments the United Kingdom made under International Law, that had now been enshrined in domestic legislation, due to the inherent deficiencies in the Rwanda asylum system. Hopefully the money we send to Rwanda will help fix that up, before we send over there, but I won’t be holding my breath! Due to these challenges and gaps in Rwanda’s system, migrants were at risk of being returned to their homeland – you know, that same homeland they fled, leaving all they had ever known, their culture, support system, comfort, worldly possessions, and more behind? Very few people run for for no reason, most are chased by something, or are chasing towards something, even fewer still run towards something ‘worse’ than they left. I mean, if the old saying ‘ out of the frying pan and into the fire’ doesn’t spring to mind unbidden here, I don’t know when it would. These people fled their homeland due to war, abuses, some kind of unsafe condition. They travel by small boat and dingy, which is incredibly dangerous, in securing their passage they must engage with criminal elements and are often swept into financial situations they struggle to ever repay, leaving them bonded to the danger for extended periods of time. When they reach England, they’re shoved on a plane and sent over to Rwanda, a country with a potentially equal if not worse record for human rights. Pan. Fire. Meet.
Setting aside the consensus of every organisation holding human rights in high esteem, the concern over ethics, money, etc and take a look at the sheer manipulation tactics employed? According to the annual report for 2022-2023(16) from the Home Office, whose introduction opens with ‘we must stop the boats’, within this report the Home office compares the Rwanda partnership to the 2013 Australian ‘operation sovereign Borders’(16) and boast it has lowered a buffet of crimes(16), which can only be categorised as abhorrent regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. I mean, granted, it’s clever when you really think about it, because no matter how much empathy you might feel for someone fleeing their homeland, do you feel more or less for a rape victim. It’s manipulative, if you permit asylum seekers, you’re permitting rapists, and no one wants to be that person. If this partnership truly stood on its own merits, would it need to barter for your empathy and play it against you? We have the capacity to feel compassion for more than one group at a time, and I want to believe our government does too, but the evidence isn’t looking good – is this really who we want to lead and represent us?
In conclusion:
Throughout my teens I remember sitting up at night crying and anxious, I was so worried for all the wrongs in the world, all the people I was presently unable to help. My mother would always say to me that you can’t help them if you can’t help yourself, and this sentiment has seen me through. I feel it is pertinent here. It seems to me that this is yet another example where we make the mistake of separating things when we should be considering them as holistic, larger picture. I already wrote an analysis on the detriments of considering physical and mental health as separate ‘entities’ to care for, and this is pretty similar to me. The answer to the migration crisis is not to degrade and strip the humanity of some, but to de-stigmatise and foster unity, community, and a willingness to co-operate. We need, maybe now more than ever, a bit of that World War Two Blitz spirit – the ethos of mend and make do, keep calm and carry on! Asylum seekers are not the enemy, they’re not ‘a problem to solve’, and when viewed in this way of course there is fear and outrage amongst other discourse. The answer necessitates a multi-disciplinary approach, it is a complicated issue with many factors, there’s nothing any one person can do to fix the entire problem – but we can all do our part, we can all do something to help. I encourage each and every one of you to look into your local organisations, government, and other charitable or outreach programs, see if you can help in some way. It really does take a village.
I do recognise that the United Kingdom is not a big collection of land, we have limited space, limited resources, and we outsourced a lot of our production some time ago. There is some truth to the assertion that we do not have enough resources to help everyone who enters the country, or that we need to help those currently residing here first. However, if our government were actually doing that, we would see evidence of it somewhere, but we don’t. Instead? We have ineffective breed specific legislation, new legislation forcing minimum service requirements are met on strike days (09), Rebecca Lawrence handed in her resignation from head of the crown prosecution service (CPS), the organisation responsible for prosecuting crime in England and Wales, after she filed and employment case against CPS in 2022 which she won. I don’t know what that says about the state of our criminal justice system when the head of said system needs to file a discrimination claim against it and wins, but nothing good, that’s for sure! (10) Speaking of the CPS, Max Hill Kings Council (KC) told the BBC in October there’s a huge backlog, something like 65,000 crown court trials, an all time high and the highest since 2018 (11) – The situation within the CPS is probably gonna be made into a post all of its own, honestly, there’s enough going on there, like Alan Pickering who assaulted incarcerated women while they were jailed, often when asleep (12). Or the Conservatives failure to put an end to ‘no-fault’ evictions, the Labour Party estimates roughly 5,758 households could be threatened with homelessness in the last three months of 2023, based on current trends. While there have been moves to improve and reform, the governments ‘Renter’s Reform bill’ which does make provisions to end ‘Section 21 evictions’ does not implement them until reforms to the justice system are ‘in place’ – what those are I couldn’t uncover, though (13). So clearly, the money and other resources are not being used to help ‘our own’, or ‘others’, so where is it? What is it being spend on? Where are the results of that investment? How does it benefit us, the people, who elected this administration and for whom they are supposedly working for? Yeah, I don’t know either.