THE RWANDA-UNITED KINGDOM TREATY: A CONTROVERSIAL AGREEMENT

On 5 December 2023, the United Kingdom and Rwanda signed a new migration cooperation treaty. The agreement, which has been widely criticized by human rights organizations and the political opposition in the United Kingdom, states that the United Kingdom will send all asylum seekers who arrive in the country irregularly to Rwanda.

The deal aims to reduce the arrival of migrants to the UK, which has increased in recent years. The British government maintains that Rwanda is a safe country and offers a suitable environment for asylum seekers to seek asylum.

However, human rights organizations have denounced that the agreement is illegal and violates the human rights of asylum seekers. They argue that Rwanda is not a safe country and that asylum seekers could be subjected to torture or other abuses.

The political opposition in the United Kingdom has also criticized the agreement. Opponents argue it is a cruel and ineffective policy, and will only increase the suffering of asylum seekers.

Context of the treaty

The Rwanda-United Kingdom treaty is part of a global trend of the governments of developed countries to externalize their immigration policies. In recent years, several countries, such as Australia, the United States and Denmark, have signed agreements with third countries to send asylum seekers who arrive at their borders irregularly to these countries.

This trend has been criticized by human rights organizations, who maintain that it violates the human rights of asylum seekers. They argue that asylum seekers have the right to seek asylum in any country, and that they should not be deported to countries where they could be subjected to abuse.

Controversy surrounding the treaty

The Rwanda-UK treaty has been widely criticized by human rights organizations and the political opposition in the UK. The criticisms focus on the following points:

Legality: Human rights organizations maintain that the agreement is illegal and violates the human rights of asylum seekers. They argue that the deportation of asylum seekers to countries where they could be subjected to abuse is a violation of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
Security: Human rights organizations also maintain that Rwanda is not a safe country for asylum seekers. They argue that Rwanda has a history of human rights violations, and that asylum seekers could be subjected to torture or other abuses.
Deterrent effect: Opponents of the agreement maintain that it is not an effective measure to deter people from migrating irregularly. They argue that asylum seekers will continue to arrive in the UK, even if they know they may be deported to Rwanda.

Possible consequences of the treaty

The Rwanda-United Kingdom treaty could have the following consequences:

Increased tension between the United Kingdom and human rights organizations: the agreement has generated great tension between the United Kingdom and human rights organizations, which consider it a violation of human rights. This tension is likely to continue in the coming months and years.
Increased pressure on Rwanda: The agreement could put pressure on Rwanda to ensure the safety of asylum seekers arriving in the country. Rwanda may need to take steps to improve its human rights record.
Increase in irregular migration: Opponents of the deal argue that it could increase irregular migration, as asylum seekers could try to arrive in the UK illegally to avoid being deported to Rwanda.

Ultimately, the Rwanda-UK treaty is a controversial agreement that could have a significant impact on migration to Europe. The agreement is likely to continue generating debate in the coming months and years.