UK-Rwandan Asylum Deal and African Security: Mitigating Recolonisation and Obnoxious Migration

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

The United Kingdom-Rwandan Asylum Deal (UK-RAD) is a manifestation of a terrible thing in righteousness. It is doing a wrong thing to promote righteousness using the diplomacy of stick and carrot approach. The deal reminds one of the observation of diplomacy as the art of telling someone to prepare to go to hell and the person will be eager to go there. The UK-RAD is not in any way different: the United Kingdom has asked Rwanda to accept self-enslavement, obnoxious international migration, and recolonisation. Rwanda, probably for economic insolvency, happily accepts to do so. African leaders wither thou art? African ancestors, what is happening to your descendants? When there are only two ethnic groups, the Tutsi and the Hutus, there was a genocidal war. Now efforts are being internationally made to introduce a third multiracial group in Rwanda. Why are African leaders becoming so myopic?

On Friday, 8th April 2022, the UK signed a deal on illegal immigrants. The sum of N120m ($156 million) is to be given to the Government of Rwanda within the framework of a 5-year economic development partnership programme to tackle the problem of unwanted illegal migrants seeking refuge in the United Kingdom. The deal, which was appended to by the UK Home Secretary, Priti Patel, and Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Vincent Biruta, in Kigali, allows for issuance of a one-way ticket to Rwanda and giving priority to single men who arrived on boats or lorries to the UK. All illegal migrants or asylum seekers who accept to go to Rwanda are to be integrated into Rwandan communities, protected under Rwanda law, and given equal access to employment and enrolment in the healthcare and social care services.

Without doubt, several perturbing questions cannot but be raised in understanding the ratio decidendi of the deal: Why the choice of Africa, and particularly Rwanda? Admittedly, the United Kingdom is seriously challenged by irregular migration: 8,404 migrants arrived in the UK in 2020 and the number increased sharply to 28,526 in 2021, thus representing an increase of 29.46 %. Where did these people come from? Are they all illegal migrants coming from Africa? The mere fact that priority will be given to migrants arriving in small boats and lorries suggest that some of the migrants might be crossing the English Channel to the UK, implying that the illegal migrants are also from Europe? In this regard, why should European illegal migrants be exported to Rwanda or any part of Africa for colonisation? European migration to South Africa led to introduction of obnoxious apartheid policies. British migration to Zimbabwe ended up in Chimurenga policies that remained an unresolved issue between Robert Mugabe before he died and the UK. What will the new UK-RAD lead to?

Dimensions of UK-RAD 

Migration in international law and relations is a very critical issue, particularly between the developed world and the developing countries. The developed world is generally very hostile to migration, regular or irregular, to their countries, while the developing world supports it for various reasons. Even when migration is not irregular, the problems of integration, especially in terms of xenophobia, racism, unequal access to social security, abound. Consequently, the UK-RAD is not simply an issue between the UK and Rwanda, but more generally between the developed countries and Africa.

For some African scholars, the impoverishment of Africa is largely traceable to colonisation, and therefore, the impoverished Africans who are now seeking greener pastures in the developed world do have the legitimate right to seek refuge in the developed world, in protest or otherwise. Besides, the colonialists are believed to have bred leaders that enslave their followers in Africa. They oppress their people. It is democracy à la manu militari in Africa. To escape merciless dictatorship at home, people seek to migrate to where they believe they can get succour. Migration is therefore about survival. Put differently, migration, though unwanted by the developed countries, is a burden that many African elite believe is inevitable for the developed world.

And true enough again, the international community has been seized with the question of migration but to no avail. The Delegation of Nigeria recalled at the 92nd Session of the Council of the International Organisation for Migration in New York, held on 28 November 2006 that, ‘at the High-Level Dialogue in New York from 14 to 15 September 2006, many States affirmed that international migration was a growing phenomenon, intrinsic to human nature and a key component in both developing and developed countries.’

 ‘In this regard,’ Nigeria further submitted, since migration holds opportunities and at the same time a challenge to all countries, whether as countries of origin, transit, or destination, ‘partnerships between governments and the private sector, employers and trade unions, civil society and local governments, as well as other stakeholders, are critical in addressing migration and development issues. Partnerships are needed to address capacity building in both countries of origin and destination to formulate coherent migration policies on the need to combat brain drain, enhance the protection of the rights of migrants, promote integration of migrants into host society…, fight against human trafficking and people smuggling, stem irregular migration and deal with the root causes of international migration.’ The import of Nigeria’s submission is that there is the need for mutual understanding through partnership in addressing the challenges and opportunities of migration. 

At the level of the UK-RAD, the main problem of illegal migration is, à priori, that of insecurity and how to learn from history. Learning from history is necessary because land cannot but become an issue in the aftermath of the UK-RAD. The illegal migrants going to Rwanda may also seek the acquisition of land which has always been a major rationale for conflict in Africa. The Fulani are being encouraged to flood Nigeria and they are currently at loggerheads with indigenous farmers over their titled land. 

In Zimbabwe, land was the first reason for the country’s Chimurenga. The word chimurenga, is from Shona language. It is generally synonymous with sustained revolutionary struggle for equality, human rights, political dignity, and social justice. It is used to refer to the first, second and third Zimbabwean struggle against the British colonialists for review of land ownership policy which was discriminatory and very detrimental to the interest of African Zimbabweans.

The first Chimurenga, generally considered as the first War of Independence, is about the Ndebele and Shona uprising against the administration of the British South Africa Company in 1896-1897. It was a resistance struggle against ‘stolen dignity, land and heritage by blacks.’ The British were ‘attracted by fertile lands, rich minerals and cheap human resources,’ in setting out to conquer Zimbabwe. While the Zimbabweans were still challenged by rinderpest and drought, the white settlers arrived and appropriated their land. This prompted the M’Limo-led revolt. The number of casualties at the end of the revolt is thought-provoking: the Europeans had only 188 injuries and 450 deaths, while 8000 Africans lost their lives because of their inferior weapons. As noted in https://revision.co.zw ‘the whites had dynamites, maxim guns and powders whilst the Africans have bows, arrows and spears.’ The whole essence of the revolt was to resist the acquisition of their fertile land by the foreign aggressors.

The second Chimurenga was fought from 4 July 1964 to 12 December 1979 because the problems of land deprivation, cattle keeping restrictions, inequalities in the education and health sectors were yet to be addressed. The struggle therefore moved from mere or non-violent agitation for reform to violent armed struggle. Besides, the need to bring colonisation to an end was considered another desideratum. This second Chimurenga led to the removal in 1980 of the Rhodesian government. In fact, the crescendo of the struggle was the Third Chimurenga which essentially focused on Land Redistribution and Reform. It was initiated under Robert Mugabe on 15 July 2000.

What is important to note here is that the Land Tenure Act of 1969 repealed and replaced the Land Apportionment Act, and divided land into European, African and National Land. Minority Europeans were given 45,000 acres while majority Africans were also given 45,000 acres. 6,500 acres were reserved as National Land. More disturbingly, the area of land given to the whites under colonisation was the most fertile. That of Africa Zimbabweans was horrible. Consequently, Robert Mugabe reversed this situation on the side of equity, fairness and justice, a situation that partly prompted the UK to promise the Mugabe government compensation. The UK did not pay fully the compensation mutually agreed to. The problem of land allocation in Zimbabwe is still recidivist.

In fact, in Rwanda, 75% of the land is for agriculture of which 10% is for permanent crop land, and of which 0.6% is irrigated, 6% is marshland. 19% of the total land is forest. This means that the impending influx of illegal migrants from the UK to Rwanda will impact on this agricultural structure. Besides, Rwanda had a population of about 13.26m in 2021. Rwanda ‘is the most densely populated mainland African country among countries larger than 10,000 km2. 12.6 million live on 26,338 km2 or 10,169 sq mile of land. Perhaps most notably, the biggest problem in Rwanda has been the issue of demographic pressure. It has been observed that ‘since 1959, Rwanda’s political and social instability has had serious economic repercussions. Intense demographic pressure, the shortage of arable land, and lack of access to the Indian ocean have been three critical problems in Rwanda’s economic development.’

With this problem of shortage of arable land and demographic pressure, where is common sense in seeking to deepen the demographic pressure? The illegal migrant coming to Rwanda to seek legality of their status will be authorised to struggle for the share of the small arable land. They will surely engage in the subsistence agriculture in which 90% of the current working population contribute more than 40% to the GDP. There is no way the prescription of Nigeria’s Afro-beat maestro, Fela Anikulapo, will not come true in Rwanda: ‘when trouble sleeps and Yanga go wake am, wetting idey find, palaver idey find, palaver idey find oooo.’ This type of palaver must be prevented because of its deeper implications of potentiality for recolonisation and general insecurity

Impending Recolonisation and Insecurity

UK-RAD is a pointer to an impending recolonisation of Africa by proxy and illegal migration within the framework of globalisation which exists in several dimensions: economic, political, cultural, technological, banking industry, diplomatic, and automotive industry globalisation. The most critical tools of globalisation are internet; communication technology; especially with the introduction of 4G and 5G technologies; IoT and AI technologies; blockchain, which facilitates the secure access to data required in the healthcare, banking industries and others.

With this technology-driven globalisation, we observe that the UK-RAD has the potential to serve as a counter-order to the existing order in Rwanda, the outcome of which cannot but be disorder. Explained differently, Rwanda may have a new wave of insecurity that can surpass the 1994 genocidal crisis in the foreseeable future. Currently, the Rwanda environment is apparently peaceful, but this situation may not be so with the likely implementation of the UK-RAD.

According to https://www.theglobaleconomy.com, the crime statistics in Rwanda show that kidnappings in the period from 2008 to 2013, have an average value of 0.1 kidnappings per 100,000 people with a minimum of 0.1 kidnappings per 100,000 in 2008 and a maximum of 0.2 kidnappings per 100,000 in 2013. The latest value from 2013 is 0.2 kidnappings per 100,000 people. The world average in 2013 based on 83 countries is 1.7 kidnappings per 100,000 people. This simply means that kidnapping is not really a big deal in Rwanda with a figure quite below the global average of 1.7.

Another area of insecurity is robbery. In the same period 2008-2013, the average value was 21 robberies per 100,000 people with a minimum of 17 robberies per 100,000 people in 2011 and a maximum of 25 robberies per 100,000 people in 2013. The latest value from 2013 is 25 robberies per 100,000 people while the world average in 2013 based on 95 countries is 119 robberies per 100,000 people.

In the period 2005-2017, the average number of prisoners was 563 per 100,000 people with a minimum of 468 prisoners per 100,000 people in 2015 and a maximum of 744 prisoners per 100,000 people in 2005. The world average in 2017 based on 146 countries is 182 prisoners per 100,000 people. These figures imply that the level of convicted criminals is low. For instance, 468 prisoners out of 100,000 people are only 0.46%.

In terms of homicides, the average value in the period 2006-2015 was 2.9 homicides per 100,000 people with a minimum of 1.5 homicides per 100,000 people in 2008 and a maximum of 3.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 2009. The latest value from 2015 is 2.5 homicides per 100,000. The world average based on 155 countries is 7.6 homicides per 100,000 people. Again, the implication of this is that homicide, which means the killing of a human being by another human being, or simply a murderer, is also not high. Threats to security of life are insignificant.

However, and perhaps more interestingly, at the level of fragile state level index and religious composition of the population, Rwanda is not far away from becoming a fragile state. TheGlobalEconomy.com, in its rating, 0 (low) – 120 (high), covering the period 2007-2021, Rwanda had 89.01 index points with a minimum of 85 index points in 2021 and a maximum of 91.3 index points in 2016. The latest value from 2021 is 85 index points while the world average based on 173 countries is 66.40 index points.

Regarding the religious content of the population, the 2012 census shows that 43.7% of the population is Roman Catholic while 37.7% is Protestant, 11.8% is Seven-day Adventist, and 2.0% Sunni Muslim, 2.5% does not have any religious affiliation, and 0.7% is Jehovah’s Witness. Thus, more than 90% of the population are Christians. Many of the people migrating to the UK are from Muslim countries. The current religious structure cannot but be considerably affected when the implementation of the UK-RAD begins.

The security threats index, 0 (low) -10 (high), in the period 2007-2021 shows 5.58 index points with a minimum of 4.6 index points in 2007 and a maximum of 6.2 index points in 2015. The latest value from 2021 is 5.8 index points while the world average in 2021 based on 173 countries is 5.29 index points. Additionally, the factionalised elites index, 0 (low) – 10 (high) in the period 2007 to 2021 shows 8.07 index points with a minimum of 7.8 index points in 2008 and a maximum of 8.4 index points in 2011. The latest value from 2021 is 8 index points while the world average in 2021 based on 173 countries is 6.58 index points.

If the security threats index points were a minimum of 4.6 in 2007, if the latest value was 5.8 index points in 2021 and if the maximum was 6.2 index points in 2015, which are both higher than the world average of 5.29 index points, it simply means that security threats are gradually deepening in Rwanda. In the same vein, a minimum of 7.8 index points for factionalised elite suggests a very divided society. 7.8 index points represent 78%. If the extent of factionalising can be 78% minimum and 84% maximum, will the implementation of the UK-RAD not deepen this division? To what extent will the payment of ₤120m to Rwanda prevent the security threats?

Grosso modo, Rwanda’s economic globalisation index, 0 (low) – 100 (high) in the period 1970-2019 shows an average value of 28.68 points with a minimum of 17.06 points in 1972 and a maximum of 51.56 in 2019. While the latest value from 2019 is 51.56 points, the world average in 2019 based on 186 countries was 58.73 points.

From the foregoing statistics, Rwanda is generally on the average as shown on the various indices considered, save in cases of the fragility and likely failure of Rwanda as a State. Consequently, Rwanda, in particular, and Africa, in general, must be more cautious about deals like the UK-RAD. The UK does not want to pollute its own population with any manner of international migration. Britain is on record to have deported the West Indians she allowed to come to the UK following the end of WWII for manpower needs. When the problems of labour were addressed, the labour migrants were deported to their various homes. 

The question to ask is why Britain wants self-preservation in terms of self-identity and culture, but is encouraging illegal migrants to go to Africa? What are the nationalities of the would-be migrants? How do we know the extent of their radicalism? Are jihadist terrorists not among them? Why are efforts spiritedly being made to Fulanise and Islamise Nigeria? Are the people who refused to acknowledge that black people who were escaping war in Ukraine and seeking safety at the Polish borders and others have right as Europeans to survive not part of the refugees coming to Rwanda? If not, will the refugees not become destabilisation agents? There was the time Morocco made efforts to Join the ECOWAS apparently to be used as conduit pipe for EU products to the ECOWAS so that the EU products can qualify to be considered as originating from the ECOWAS region. Today it is another strategy, UK-RAD, the long-term objective of which cannot but be to lay new foundations for a new recolonisation and hegemony. This agenda is not acceptable and should be promptly completely nipped in the bud. In doing so, a gradual process of mitigating all efforts at recolonisation in whatever form, beginning with the illegal and obnoxious migration of the UK-RAD type, should be set aside.

Without doubt, the issue of Rwandan sovereignty is raised because Rwanda is a sovereign State and can exclusively decide whether to sign a bilateral agreement with the UK. However, what happens if the Rwandan government is mortgaging the future of its people? Is it not the totality of the future of all Africans that is at stake when the question of continental integration is considered? If the UK does not want some people, why should any African leader accept the same people in exchange for money? African leaders need not be terrible. The implementation of the UK-RAD must be subjected to prior public debate. Enough is enough of enslavement of Africans by Africans please.