Revealed: UK May Deport Rwandan Refugees to Armenia
Britain has entered talks to replicate the Rwanda migrant deportation scheme with Armenia, Ivory Coast, Costa Rica and Botswana, according to leaked documents that reveal the government’s extensive search for another third-country deal.
Several South American countries including Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil and Colombia have also been approached but were viewed as less likely to be interested in what the government describes as a “third-country asylum processing deal”.
A list of African countries including Cape Verde, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Angola and Sierra Leone were put on a reserve list that would be approached if other targets failed.
Other African countries including Morocco, Tunisia, Namibia and The Gambia “explicitly declined” to enter technical discussions.
The details are revealed in a tranche of internal government documents seen by The Times. They relate to work undertaken by the Home Office and Foreign Office during the past 18 months to find countries that might be interested in replicating the Rwanda scheme.
A long list of countries were assessed against a feasibility criteria, but several rejected the UK’s advances or were ruled unviable by officials. The Foreign Office identified Ivory Coast, Botswana, Armenia and Costa Rica as countries to prioritise. The government pressed ahead with talks with representatives from these countries on agreeing a similar UK-Rwanda deal, although progress with all four has stalled because of the ongoing problems with the Rwanda deal.
The government hopes negotiations can resume once the Rwanda scheme is up and running, with the Home Office aiming to deport the first migrants by early June, although it has still not found an airline or struck a deal with the RAF to operate the first flights.
It will notify the first migrants due for deportation within the next fortnight after the Safety of Rwanda Bill has finally passed both houses of parliament, expected by Thursday.
The search for additional third-country asylum deals was instigated by Rishi Sunak after he became prime minister in October 2022. He instructed the two departments to reinstigate work that had previously taken place to find potential partner countries, and which led to the original deal with Rwanda in April 2022.
Sunak set the Home Office and Foreign Office a deadline of last autumn to agree two additional deals. The prime minister even used the coronation of the King last year to lobby the leaders of target countries, according to the documents correspondence contained in the leaked documents.
Work “at pace” to find willing partners
Downing Street officials instructed the two departments to work “at pace” to find willing partners to strike a similar third-country asylum processing agreement as the Rwanda scheme. Sunak’s instructions included exploring “all possible plan B options” in the event the Rwanda policy collapsed.
However, the departments failed to meet his deadline owing to major disagreements over which countries to pursue and a lack of progress in negotiations.
The Foreign Office said many potential partner countries had stalled negotiations or refused to progress talks until they knew the outcome to the ongoing legal and logistical obstacles preventing the implementation of the Rwanda scheme.
A senior Foreign Office official wrote: “We are conscious that many potential partner countries are following the UK legal process on the partnership with Rwanda and may be cautious about engaging substantively until this process is satisfactorily resolved.”
However, James Cleverly, who was foreign secretary at the time, made clear to officials that engagement and negotiations with potential new countries should continue in parallel with legal proceedings.
Countries were assessed for suitability
Countries were assessed against a list of criteria before being pursued as potential targets. They needed to be signatories to the Refugee Convention, have a good track record on asylum decision-making and treatment of refugees, and be a safe country in terms of the risk of refoulement, the process by which migrants are deported back to a country where they may face inhumane treatment.
Any negotiations must not risk derailing the existing arrangement with Rwanda or threaten Britain’s other diplomatic or national interests. Any deal must not risk “remigration” to the UK or raise human trafficking or serious organised crime concerns.
The size of a country’s territory and population must also be taken into account when deciding the “deliverability and feasibility” of targets.
Government entered talks with four countries
The UK government entered talks with four countries despite concerns raised by the Foreign Office about each of them.
Ivory Coast has “exceptionally close ties” to France, and officials warned that pursuing a deal with the west African country was a risk to Anglo-French relations. They also said that the country suffers from instability spilling over from the Sahel and that its management of refugees is “functional but overstretched”.
Costa Rica was chosen as a good candidate country given its “positive relationship” with the UNCHR, the UN’s refugee agency. Officials were impressed with the country’s migration laws and policies that guaranteed social integration and easy and widespread access to medical facilities, education and employment. However, they warned that the immigration process in Costa Rica can be costly, complex and “challenging to navigate”.
Botswana had struggled with providing sufficient accommodation for the current caseload of refugees. However, negotiations with the country were more advanced, although its government stated in talks that it would need to change its immigration laws.
Armenia is awaiting the outcome of the Rwanda policy. Technical talks with the Armenian government began in September but progress has been stalled.
A government spokesman said: “The UK is continuing to work with a range of international partners to tackle global illegal migration challenges. Our focus right now is passing the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which builds on the Illegal Migration Act, and putting plans in place to get flights off the ground as soon as possible.”
Seven countries were ruled out
Seven countries were ruled out by officials as non-starters.
Kenya had previously rejected migration deals with the UK owing to concerns over “a new form of colonialism”. Pursuing an agreement with Kenya posed “significant risks to the UK’s bilateral relationship”, an assessment said.
The Foreign Office warned that revisiting an agreement with Kenya would “elicit a strong reaction” and advised against pursuing a deal because the country is a strategic partner in peacekeeping and in the fight against al-Shabaab, an Islamist terror network in the region.
Kenya is also the first choice as a staging post for any evacuation of British nationals and dependents from a number of neighbouring countries in the region.
Benin, in West Africa, had shown “some interest” in a deal in July 2021 but the Foreign Office advised against pursuing a new deal because previous talks were slow and the US and France had a “difficult relationship” with the country over its poor human rights record.
Djibouti was discounted because of its scarcity of water and sanitation, with officials pointing out it had endemic disease, famine and drought.
Gabon was ruled out owing to concerns over its lack of democracy, freedom of expression and “significant human rights concerns”.
Guinea-Bissau was also dismissed because of frequent military coup attempts, poor human rights and the risk that migrants relocated there would migrate back to the UK.
Liberia and Azerbaijan were also discounted as part of the audit.
The documents said Foreign Office ministers were keen to approach “a wide geographical spread of countries.”
Amid ongoing delays to progressing negotiations by October, the Home Office argued in correspondence with the Foreign Office that the government’s efforts should be focused on “credible and realistically deliverable” countries, warning that “anything else risks wasting time, resource and political capital” and exposure to unnecessary diplomatic risks.
Why Uruguay and Belize were rejected
The Home Office said that countries lacking a well-established asylum system that would likely delay implementation of the agreements should be disregarded.
However, it questioned why Uruguay and Belize had not been included as suitable candidates, with Uruguay’s established asylum system and negative population growth cited as reasons why it would make a good candidate country.
The Foreign Office had rejected Uruguay because it played an important role supporting British sovereignty of the Falklands. A senior official wrote: “Uruguay is a key partner for the Falklands for logistical and medical support and it was judged that a TCAP arrangement with Uruguay carried significant risks for our Falklands equities.”
The Foreign Office also rejected Belize. The Home Office argued that Belize was a “suitable candidate country,” pointing out it is a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and has a strong history of welcoming refugees, while Britain has a strong bilateral relationship with it, which suggested it could be a “promising country”.
However, the Foreign Office said Belize was deprioritised because of its lack of a robust asylum system and its small population of approximately 408,000. Suriname was also discounted due to its small population, approximately 586,000. Officials stated that neither country would have the physical or administrative infrastructure to absorb more than a few hundred migrants from the UK.
Officials warned that pursuing deals with unviable countries such as these would undermine value for money as well as the potential deterrent effect given they would have to cap the number of migrants deported to the countries.
Countries Britain entered talks with last year
Armenia Leo Docherty, a former Foreign Office minister, met the Armenian foreign minister in Yerevan, its capital, in July, and Home Office officials began technical talks with their Armenian counterparts in September.
Ivory Coast Officials warned that the country’s “exceptionally close ties” to France made pursuing a deal with the west African country a risk to Anglo-French relations. Officials also warned that it suffers from instability spilling over from the Sahel and that its management of refugees was “functional but overstretched”.
Costa Rica Chosen as a good candidate country given its “positive relationship” with the UNCHR, the UN’s refugee agency. Officials were impressed with the country’s migration laws and policies that guarantee social integration and easy and widespread access to medical facilities, education and employment. However, they warned that the immigration process in Costa Rica can be costly, complex and “challenging to navigate”.
Botswana Negotiations with Botswana were more advanced, although its government stated in talks that it would need to change its immigration laws and it also struggled with providing sufficient accommodation for their current caseload of refugees.
Reserve list of African countries to be approached if other targets failed
Cape Verde Small population of 555,000 that would require a “step change” in its bilateral relationship with the UK, as it is currently a low-priority country with no bilateral programmes and very little engagement, officials said. They added that it has no protection for refugees so would need significant legislative changes.
Senegal Serious human rights concerns were raised by officials. It is also a significant source country for illegal migration. There were concerns over extrajudicial killings, excessive force, torture and arbitrary arrests by security forces, trafficking, widespread gender-based violence and criminalisation of same-sex sexual relationships.
The Senegalese government is unlikely to be interested in engagement. Rules allowing free movement within the economic community of West African states mean there is nothing to stop migrants moving to another community country and attempting migration to the UK again.
Tanzania Has some potential for a migration partnership given its long history of hosting refugees from the region. There are approximately 310,000 refugees in Tanzania, mostly from Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, in May 2021 the UNHCR voiced concerns at reports of refoulement of Mozambicans fleeing volatile border areas. Tanzania has experienced a rise in threats of terrorism and significant human-rights concerns.
Togo Chances of progress with Togo are extremely limited as there is no diplomatic mission in Togo and officials also warned of outstanding human rights concerns.
Angola The country has no operational framework for processing asylum seekers and a backlog of more than 35,000 applications. It would take significant time and resource to build the require capacity, officials warned. Negotiations were likely to be extremely slow.
Sierra Leone One of the world’s poorest countries. Public opinion is likely to be hostile, and it is highly likely that Sierra Leone would refuse any offer of a migration partnership.
It would also be likely to request reinstatement of Britain’s military and security partnership, and has little experience of dealing with migrants or refugees.
South American countries approached but viewed as less likely to be interested
Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil and Colombia
Countries who explicitly declined to enter discussions
Morocco Flatly rejected an approach in June 2021 and Foreign Office officials advised “strongly against escalating”. Any approach “would need careful, personal foreign secretary engagement as there would be considerable FCDO/UK equities at risk”.
Tunisia Previously refused to consider any form of agreement and officials were instructed to have “no further exchanges with the UK on the subject”. The British embassy in Tunisia advised “strongly against engagement” and warned officials to expect a “sharp rebuff” if they tried approaching again.
Namibia Declined to engage in discussions in August 2021, and the Foreign Office concluded there was no point trying again as public opinion in the country was unlikely to support a deal and that it was “unlikely to be swayed by financial incentives”.
The Gambia Formally declined negotiations, citing “capacity issues” as the concern. The high commissioner advised that it is unlikely that the country would be open to further discussions and this could damage wider relations, particularly as The Gambia has been supportive of the international agenda and in co-operating with enforced returns from the UK.
Countries ruled out by officials as non-starters
Kenya Officials warned that pursuing an agreement posed “significant risks to the UK’s bilateral relationship” as the country was strategically important to the UK’s fight against terrorism in the UK and the Kenyan government viewed third-country asylum processing as “a new form of colonialism”. The Foreign Office warned that revisiting an agreement with Kenya would “elicit a strong reaction”.
Benin The country had shown “some interest” in a deal in July 2021 but the Foreign Office advised against pursuing a new deal because previous talks were slow and the US and France had a “difficult relationship” with the country over its poor human rights record.
Djibouti Discounted because of its scarcity of water and sanitation, with officials pointing out it had endemic disease, famine and drought.
Gabon Ruled out owing to concerns over its lack of democracy, freedom of expression and “significant human rights concerns”.
Liberia Seeking a deal is likely to risk undermining Liberia’s good relationship and co-operation with the UK, as it is one of only a few African countries to support UK positions on international matters. There were also human rights concerns regarding LGBT communities as the country currently criminalises same-sex sexual relationships. There is also a risk of re-migration to the UK.
Azerbaijan Poor human-rights record led officials to recommend the country not to be pursued.
Guinea-Bissau Dismissed because of frequent military coup attempts, poor human rights and the risk that migrants relocated there would migrate back to the UK.
Surinam Not feasible because population size of 586,000 was deemed too small.
Belize Unviable owing to population size of just 408,000.
