Just How Safe is Rwanda for Migrants?

Katie Hudson on 18 December 2023

Having already spent £240 million on the Rwanda asylum plan, the UK government remains committed to ensuring the migration ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between the UK and Rwanda can be put into action.

Attempting to ‘Stop the Boats’ (in the words of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak), if successful, would be a partnership between the UK and Rwanda that aims to reduce illegal immigration across the Channel to the UK, by redirecting the migrants who arrive via boat to Rwanda instead.

However, on the 15th of November 2023 the UK Supreme Court ruled that the UK Government’s Rwanda asylum plan was ‘unlawful’. The ruling was based on the asylum plan being liable to ‘refoulement’ in international law– the concept of refugees being sent to a country in which they are subject to the possibility of degrading or inhumane treatment. Seen as the ‘cornerstone’ of the UNHCR 1951 Refugee Convention, article 33 states that refugees must not be sent to a country in which they face serious challenges to their human rights.

The UK is also a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), prohibiting inhumane treatment and torture, as well as discrimination and the oppression of the freedom of religion and thought – binding the UK to accountability for human rights.

Unable to guarantee that migrants sent to Rwanda would not then be returned to countries in which they faced serious threats to their human rights, the Memorandum was therefore ruled as ‘unlawful’ and in violation of international law.

Undeterred in light of this ruling, the UK Government announced the UK-Rwanda Treaty on the 5th of December 2023, swiftly followed by the introduction of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Migration) Bill one day later. The Bill, if ratified by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, will define Rwanda as a ‘safe country’ under UK domestic law. It defines a ‘safe country’ as one which will not return people to another country in ‘contravention of any international law’ – upholding an agreement that refugees will remain in Rwanda or if returned to other countries, will not be placed in a situation which threatens their human rights. The Bill further dictates that this recognition of Rwanda as a ‘safe country’ will remain unaffected by international law – denying other nations or international organisations the ability to question the validity of Rwanda as a ‘safe country’.

If the Bill is passed, this will leave us with the question of just how safe is Rwanda for its prospective migrants?

In its constitution, Rwanda prohibits discrimination on the grounds of ‘ethnic origin, tribe, clan, colour, sex, region, social origin, religion or faith, opinion, economic status, culture, language, social status, physical or mental disability’. The prohibition of discrimination on such wide-ranging grounds is comforting to see for a state potentially about to gain the status of a ‘safe country’. However, despite this constitutional commitment to human rights, there are concerns of numerous human rights breaches in Rwanda, both past and ongoing.

Following the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, leading to approximately 800 000 civilian deaths, international organisation Human Rights Watch has assessed the protection and violation of human rights in Rwanda.

A letter written by Human Rights Watch to the UK Home Secretary in June 2022 outlines a list of ongoing human rights violations in Rwanda which dispute its credibility as a ‘safe country’.

Since 2006, vulnerable groups such as homeless people and children, as well as sex workers have been detained in Gikondo by Rwandan authorities. Those perceived to be ‘delinquents’ are detained, a fact which was recognised by the UK Government, but disregarded as an event of 2020 rather than the present day.

In 2018, Congolese refugees from the war between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda were shot at and killed during a peaceful protest against the reduction of their food rations. A clear violation of the freedom of political expression, it is clear that previous refugees in Rwanda have experienced state violence and an encroachment of their human rights.

Perhaps most concerning is the UK Government’s current and open acknowledgement of state discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community in Rwanda, contradicting its own constitution. Covered under the UK Government’s travel advice for Rwanda, the Foreign Office recognises that despite homosexuality being legal in Rwanda, ‘LGBT individuals can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities’.

It is clear to see that Rwanda is not as safe as the UK government states. The documentation of present-day human rights abuses is alarming, and equally alarming is the willingness of the UK Government to endorse a country in which such abuses are taking place.

If the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Migration) Bill is passed, it is highly possible that, as the UK Supreme Court feared, refugees sent to Rwanda will face serious challenges to their human rights.

Social media warriors are wading in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and it’s harmful for everyone

Katie Hudson on 24 October 2023

The events which have unfolded over the past few weeks are heartbreaking and devastating for all those involved. The loss of life and human rights violations which we have seen in the news bear a heavy weight upon readers and the journalists alike. Naturally, being such a heavily politicised topic, we all have something to say about it – and while political debate is healthy and to be encouraged, sharing deeply misinformed commentary in a sudden spur of passion is not.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a recent phenomenon – it has a deeply complex history which can be traced back to before the First World War. In 1917 Britain liberated Palestine from the Ottoman Empire – establishing the British Mandate of Palestine, and promised Palestinians the future establishment of an independent Arab state. Although no formal declarations were ever made, British correspondence with Arab leaders between 1915-1916 implied that Palestine would be included. Less than two years later, Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration formally promised the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the state of Palestine.

It is here the main problem arises – the British promised Palestine to both Palestinians and to Jewish people as a new homeland. By 1918 these conflicting hopes were backed by strong nationalist movements – Palestinian Nationalism and Zionism.

Throughout the British Mandate period, Palestine experienced significant population growth – from increases in Palestine’s indigenous population as well as Jewish migration. Competition for land ownership amongst an increasing population heightened nationalist tensions, and in some cases led to riots and ethnic violence. Because the British Mandate of Palestine was always intended to be a temporary measure of governance, the United Nations (UN) devised UN Resolution 181 – the partition plan for Palestine. This called for the division of Palestine into one Jewish and one Arab state – a controversial idea which led to a catastrophic war between Palestinians and Jews in 1948.

This brings us to the present day. For decades the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been centered around the struggle for statehood and national identity. It is a conflict concerning ethnic national identity, not a conflict of religion. There is no place for antisemitism. There is no place for islamophobia.

More and more of us are using social media to access the news. A survey from statista.com breaks down just how reliant we have become on social media – 78, 65, 61, and 55 per cent of respondents from Nigeria, Chile, Greece, and Hong Kong respectively use social media to access the news. Granted, not all of these respondents entirely trust what they view – however, they continue to access the news in this way. In countries including Poland, Croatia, and Portugal, over 50 per cent of adults admitted to getting their news from social media.

As we become increasingly dependent on social media for our political education, it is vital that what we share and view is based on fact not fiction.

Designated a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, Israel, Japan, and Egypt – the Islamist militant organisation ‘Hamas’ is not representative of the Palestinian people. Hamas may have won the parliamentary elections in Gaza in 2006, however, no free elections have taken place there since. The most recent poll from July 2023 found that 70% of Gazans would prefer the governance of Palestinian Authority (PA) which is a governing body under the secular political party of ‘Fatah’.

The portrayal of recent events in Palestine and Israel on social media is worrying. Supporting Hamas’ attack on Israel as they murder, rape, and abduct Israeli men, women, and children is not being pro-Palestine – it is being antisemitic. Supporting the Israeli government’s retaliation as it bombs innocent civilians and terminates vital supplies of electricity, gas, water, and food in Palestine is not being pro-Israel – it is being anti-Palestinian.

When we partake in supporting these narratives on social media, this encourages prejudice against people in our communities, and it brings about very real consequences. When political activism pages with thousands of followers on social media advocate these antisemitic or anti-Palestinian beliefs, it emboldens people of all ages and of all beliefs to justify and act upon their prejudices. Since Hamas’ first attack in Israel, the UK has seen 89 reported cases of antisemitic behaviour, with 50 reported from London alone – including the appearance of an image of Adolf Hitler on a wall in central London.

The mindless reposting of infographics on social media without taking the care to fact-check them first sustains this seemingly endless cycle of hatred, prejudice, discrimination, and violence. Remaining politically engaged is our best chance at living in a more peaceful world, but ultimately, we will not achieve this if we continue sitting behind our screens, posting carelessly.