Despite the objections of rights groups, Kigali is now in discussions with the United States about a similar arrangement after the United Kingdom’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was scrapped last year.
This month, Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe confirmed , that his country is in talks with Washington over a migration deal, but concrete details have been scarce.
According to analysts, things may turn out well for Rwanda this time.
The government of Donald Trump is reportedly in talks with Libya, a nation that is already home to tens of thousands of refugees, about deporting refugees to third nations like El Salvador.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the administration is looking for countries, preferably distant ones, to accept deported individuals, particularly convicted criminals who have served their sentences.
Rubio said at a cabinet meeting in April that “we are working with other countries to say, We want to send you some of the most despicable people to your countries.” He added that re-entry would be prevented in far-offering countries.
However, human rights organizations have expressed concern that such agreements could lead to the displacement of refugees from unsafe nations or even the countries where they emigrated.
Here’s what we know about the proposed deal:
What exactly is in the proposal?
Minister Nduhungirehe, speaking to state TV on May 5, refused to give the full details of Kigali’s discussions with Washington but said the two countries were involved in talks at the “early stage”.
The official stated that “we are in bilateral discussions.” How many refugees might be transferred, and when might that process start.
Rwandan government spokesperson Yolanda Makolo, in a statement to Al Jazeera, said no details have been formalised.
“No decisions have yet been reached, and we are still in discussion.” Instead of using prison cells or detention centers, she said on Friday, citing one aspect of our approach: “Rehab and integration.
Earlier reporting by local Rwandan media suggested the agreement could see the US pay for a programme to help deported refugees integrate into Rwandan society through stipends and job assistance schemes.
The Rwandan talks have not received any public comment from the US.
Omar Abdulsattar Ameen, an Iraqi national, was quietly deported to Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, in April in what appeared to be a possible model for upcoming deportations. Although Ameen was granted US refugee status in 2014 and is a resident of Sacramento, the US government under Joe Biden and the previous Trump administration had sought to remove him from the country.
A court ruling in 2021 stated that Ameen could be deported for lying about having ties to ISIL (ISIS), despite the fact that his close cousin was a member of the terrorist organization. Attorneys for Ameen filed an appeal against the ruling, contending that he faces being put to death in Iraq for killing a policeman.
What has happened in Rwanda that has previously done similar deals?
Rwanda attempted to negotiate a similar refugee relocation agreement with the UK in 2024, but it was unsuccessful.
The Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) deal was originally agreed to in 2022 when the UK faced a surge of migrants and refugees arriving on boats. If the asylum applications were accepted, Rwanda planned to process them and resettle them in the East African nation.
Additionally, the agreement stated that Rwanda would receive funding for its own needs in exchange for paying for each individual’s processing and integration costs. Each person, in the first year, would cost £45, 262 ($61, 358). Initial five-year plans were in place. Individuals who do not want to stay would be flown by Rwanda to their home country. The UK would pay £10, 000 ($13, 440) for every individual Rwanda returned.
However, legal difficulties prevented progress as migrant rights activists filed a number of lawsuits after denouncing the move as unethical and unlawful. They claimed that the agreement violated the UN Convention on Refugees’ non-refoulement principle, which prevents people from being forced to return to nations where they face serious dangers to their lives or freedom. At one point, a court order prevented a plane ready to fly the first set of people to Rwanda from taking off. In April 2024, parliament approved a bill of approval despite opposition.
However, after the new Labour government’s election last year, Prime Minister Keir Starmer canceled the agreement, calling it a “gimmick” by the previous Conservative government.
Separately, Rwanda has since 2019 partnered with the African Union and the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) to “temporarily” house migrants evacuated from detention centres in Libya, where they faced exploitation, torture and sexual abuse.
About 1,600 of the more than 2,200 people who were evacuated to a UN-run facility in the eastern Gashora village of Rwanda have been resettled in nations like Sweden, Norway, Canada, France, and Belgium, according to the UN. All of the refugees who have been relocated to Africa have already left. In return, the UN and the European Union provide funding to Rwanda as well as local infrastructure, such as building the village’s roads.
Why is Rwanda interested in relocating? How much does it stand to gain?
For the money, according to analysts, Rwanda is eager to secure a relocation agreement in order to improve its relationship with Western nations.
Rwanda is aid-reliant despite receiving a lot of praise for its transformation from a war-torn nation where a 1994 genocide against Tutsis was committed to a rapidly-growing economy, with close to a fifth of the budget being provided by aid. Most of that money comes from Germany, the US, and Japan.
A country’s need would likely be met if a Western nation were to enter through a deal. Rwanda received about 290 million pounds ($389 million) in pre-payments as a result of the UK deal, which has now been called off. If it had been successful, Kigali would have received about £150, 000 ($202, 000) for one individual over five years.
The government spokesperson, Makolo, declined to provide more information about the proposal’s financial details. In a mutually beneficial bilateral relationship, she told Al Jazeera, “African countries, including Rwanda, can be a part of the solution to global challenges like irregular migration.”
Importantly, analysts say Rwanda is also likely seeking a better standing with its Western allies, many of whom have voiced displeasure over its military actions in the East African region, specifically in the ongoing crisis in neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
Rwanda denies backing M23, a rebel group that has seized major cities in eastern DRC in deadly offensives since January, according to a UN group of experts and the US. Rwanda claims Kinshasa supports some former genocidaires who are now operating as militias in the DRC, while M23, which is fighting the Congolese army and allied armed rebels, claims to be protecting the rights of Congolese Tutsis.
Although the US government sanctioned Rwanda’s regional affairs minister, James Kabarebe, in February over Kigali’s support for M23, the Trump administration’s tone has noticeably softened in recent weeks, analysts say.
Of course, “This deal has something to do with that,” Amnesty International’s Christian Rumu told Al Jazeera. Rwanda is in a very difficult position, and by proposing this service, it will undoubtedly pay off. So this is political, and we can’t close our eyes to that”.
The US is currently negotiating peace talks between Rwanda and the resource-rich DRC, which is attempting to ratify a mineral deal. Rwanda’s Nduhungirehe and Congolese Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner met on April 25 and signed a peace agreement with Rubio.
What are the opinions of such agreements from human rights organizations and the UN?
Concerns about the safety and protection of refugees who are deported to third countries have been raised by the UN and rights organizations like Amnesty International.
In a statement last June when the UK-Rwanda deal was on the table, UNHCR said that while it has repeatedly commended Rwanda’s “generous” offer to host a facility for evacuees from Libya, it stands against shifting responsibility for asylum decisions to the country.
UNHCR has consistently stated that it is concerned about the serious risks that “externalization,” including refoulement, poses to refugees, and that the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership shifts responsibility for granting asylum to refugees and protecting them, according to the statement.
The US deal would differ from the UNHCR-Libya case because a third-party organization like the UN won’t be able to properly verify that international asylum protection laws are being followed, according to Rumu of Amnesty.
However, Rumu added, his opposition is also about the morality of such a deal.
Because Rwanda has open visa laws, Rumu claimed that if it were ever possible for these people to travel there, they would have chosen to do so. It’s about utilizing people’s suffering, “. ]The US] saying they’ll send the most despicable people shows it is rooted in bigotry and not in human dignity. Rwanda is concerned about its position in the eastern DRC crisis due to money, but people will suffer as a result.
In a nation that is still grappling with its complex, post-genocide past, experts also wonder how Rwanda can safely accommodate those with criminal histories and how long-term integration with local communities is possible.
Opposition politician Victoire Ingabire told Al Jazeera that it’s too early to say what effects the US deal might have on Rwanda, but that the country itself is dealing with multiple crises, including hundreds of people displaced since the 1994 genocide, and the new fighting in the DRC.
She urged Rwanda to first address both its internal and regional challenges before it can stop producing its own migrants. This will enable Rwanda to accept future migrants from other nations.
How have Rwandans reacted to the UK and US talks?
Whether or not the proposed US partnership or the failed UK deal brought up the voices of Rwandans themselves, these discussions have not been attended to.
Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations frequently criticize Rwanda for what they claim is a repressive political environment that restricts freedom of expression and press freedom, as well as a public aversion to sharing their views.
Last year, residents close to one Kigali hostel that was meant to host the refugees from the UK, spoke to Al Jazeera at the time the country’s parliament approved the plan, but they spoke anonymously and offered a neutral take.
Dativ, a 35-year-old woman, claimed that the UK’s plan sounded great because it would encourage investment in Rwanda and encourage the entry of more asylum seekers into the service sector. The main drivers of Rwanda’s economy are agriculture, tourism, and services.
Another Rwandan, a 45-year-old man who works as a taxi driver in the same neighbourhood and who refused to give his name, said it could go both ways: Rwandans could have more work, but the relocated asylum seekers could also be competing with locals for job opportunities.
