Front Burner - Bonus | Nothing is Foreign: Why the U.K. is outsourcing its refugees

Episode Date: May 7, 2022

The U.K.'s plan to send refugees on a one-way trip to Rwanda is causing outrage. In a controversial, multimillion-pound deal, the British government will send some asylum seekers to Rwanda instead of allowing them to stay in the U.K. This plan marks a major shift in how refugees are treated and could have a far-reaching implications for the rest of Europe — and for thousands of refugees fleeing war and persecution. This week, Nothing is Foreign explains how the deal works, why thousands of lives could be in jeopardy, why some are calling this immigration policy "neo-colonialism" and why critics say Rwanda isn't a safe haven. Featuring: Bella Sankey, director of Detention Action. Theogene Rudasingwa, former Rwandan ambassador to the U.S.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. To be honest, we were trying to cross the channel yesterday night, but you know, there were a lot of controlling on the border, you know, near the sea. Almost every day, hundreds of refugees and small boats try to cross the English Channel from France,

hoping to claim asylum in the UK. For many of them, this is the last leg of a long, harrowing journey. So we spent like two days in the jungle under the trees without, you know, without any shelter, without any, you know, a place to sleep. And we will try to go tonight. These refugees have become a political lightning rod in the UK. And for years now, the Boris Johnson government has tried to crack down on them. government has tried to crack down on them. Last month, they introduced their new plan to deport asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda. This innovative approach, driven by our shared humanitarian impulse and made possible by Brexit freedoms, will provide safe and legal

routes for asylum while disrupting the business model of the gangs. Johnson and Home Secretary Preeti Patel have been presenting this policy as compassionate and talking about Rwanda as a haven for refugees. But the plan's been denounced by the UN, many refugee organizations, and it's left asylum seekers scared for their futures. There is no future for us in Africa.

You know, we are from Afghanistan. Like, we can't live in our country since there are Taliban. We want to do something in future. We have a lot of life ahead in our lives. So if they deport us to Africa, what are we going to do there? So why is the UK doing this? What would being sent to Rwanda mean for these asylum seekers? And is the British government setting a dangerous new precedent

for the treatment of millions of refugees? I'm talking to Bella Sankey. She's the director of Detention Action, which works on behalf of people in immigration detention in the UK. And later in the episode, we're also going to hear from former Rwandan ambassador to the US, Teojen Rudasingwa. And it's a fascinating conversation, so make sure you stick around for that. I'm Tamara Kandaker, and you're listening to Nothing is

Foreign. Hi, Bella. Thank you so much for doing this. My pleasure. So, Bella, in April, Home Secretary Priti Patel introduced a plan to send asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda. And this is part of the Nationality and Borders Act, which has just been passed by UK's parliament. And I want to start by zooming in a bit on that part of the act. What do we know about the Rwanda plan specifically? what do we know about the Rwanda plan specifically? So the Home Secretary and the UK government have done a really good job of keeping us pretty much in the dark. Then suddenly in April of this year, there is a kind of snap announcement that a deal has been signed with the Rwandan government. So from today, our new migration and economic

development partnership will mean that anyone entering the UK illegally, as well as those who have arrived illegally since January the 1st, may now be relocated to Rwanda. From what we now know, the plan is that anybody who has arrived in the UK without having pre-authorization to come to the UK and claim asylum will be vulnerable to being sent to Rwanda. When you say people who arrive without prior permission, what does that mean? What do those irregular channels, as they call them, look like? So I think the important thing to know is that that is pretty much everybody who arrives in the UK, because this government has also successively shut down routes by which people may come to the UK in a more formal way to claim asylum. So what they're talking about are the people that arrive without

visas, without prior permission, sometimes without their travel documents to claim asylum. And the UK currently receives people from Afghanistan, from Syria, from Iran, from Eritrea, from many, many countries that produce refugees. Those are the people that the government is seeking to target, particularly people that arrive by small boats between France and the UK. Huddled, frightened and packed into border force boats, more than 100 migrants made it across the Channel today. And that comes after 254 people crossed the Channel on Sunday, according to the Ministry of Defence's latest figures, in just seven boats.

It gives you an idea of just how dangerously overcrowded those small dinghies are. So to be clear, anybody can be sent to Rwanda, including people who are not from Rwanda originally. sent to Rwanda, including people who are not from Rwanda originally? Right. So there is no requirement for there to be any connection between an individual and Rwanda. And what is supposed to happen once these asylum seekers get to Rwanda? The UK government is claiming that people's asylum claims will then be processed in Rwanda. We know from previous experiments, for example, Israel had a similar arrangement with Rwanda back in 2013, that the asylum system in Rwanda did not respond to those arrivals from Israel. People did not have their asylum claims properly considered and people gave up on the system and then swiftly left Rwanda shortly afterwards. So the government is claiming that there will be an asylum process that will be followed.

But obviously, there are huge concerns that that's not the case. And indeed, that Rwanda's asylum system will not be able to cope with the numbers of people that the UK is trying to send there. cope with the numbers of people that the UK is trying to send there. Is the idea that if people's asylum claims are successful in Rwanda, they would be allowed to move to the UK and live in the UK? No. So the idea is that if they are found to be asylum seekers in Rwanda, then they will be resettled in Rwanda. This is Home Secretary Preeti Patel. And those who are resettled will be given the support,

including up to five years of training with the help of integration, accommodation, health care, so that they can resettle and thrive. This is a mechanism and a system by which the UK is trying to shed itself of responsibility for asylum seekers per se. And that was very similar to what the Australian government did when it set up detention camps in Manus Island and in Nauru. The idea was that this is not Australia's responsibility anymore and Australia would not accept people back. And what's your understanding of how this deal came about?

Why is the partnership with Rwanda, of all places? This is a highly controversial policy, turning on its head over 70 years of refugee protection and all of the lessons that we were supposed to have learned from the Holocaust, which is that people don't need papers, permission and visas to claim asylum. I think for that reason, the government will have really struggled to find a country that would cooperate in this way, essentially a trade in asylum seekers. I think trade is the operative word. The government of the UK has committed millions of pounds to Rwanda.

Is Rwanda considered a safe country for refugees? No, it isn't. Rwanda is a country that produces asylum seekers as recently as last year and you only need to look at reports from human rights organizations that are active in Rwanda, the testimonies of Rwandan refugees that have fled Rwanda very recently and currently and can talk about the severe oppression, intimidation and persecution that they've been subjected to. And also reports about how refugees have been treated in Rwanda in the very recent past. So in 2018, for example, Rwandan police opened fire on Congolese refugees and killed several of them. They were protesting their poor conditions. As part of this arrangement, the Rwandan government says the UK has already paid them 120 million pounds to house and integrate the asylum seekers who are deported.

The deal is supposed to last five years. It's been condemned by Amnesty International and the UNHCR, which called it neocolonial. But the criticism isn't just coming from refugee advocates and international organizations. It's also coming from Rwandans themselves, like Teojen Rudasingwa. Being a refugee is not an easy choice. It's a very risky undertaking. But I'm surprised by Kagame more than anybody else because he should understand what being a refugee is all about. Teo Jen was the Rwandan ambassador to the U.S. between 1996 and 1999, after the country's civil war ended in 1994. He also served as the chief

of staff to President Paul Kagame. Kagame's political party is the Rwandan Patriotic Front, also known as the RPF. It was formed by Tutsi refugees in the 90s. And just as a refresher, because this history is relevant, during the war, members of the Hutu ethnic majority went on a campaign to wipe out the Tutsi minority, and they slaughtered between 800,000 and a million Tutsis. Kagame led the RPF to victory, and he's been running the country ever since. But Teo Jen left Rwanda in 2004. He says he fell out with the regime over its alleged human rights abuses,

and now he lives in the U.S. I see basically two reasons why Kagame does something like that. The first one being that there is a monetary value to the transaction. The second reason, according to Teo-jen, is that the regime is trying to soften its own reputation internationally. In recent years, it's been accused of silencing its critics, often in brutal ways. A popular Rwandan singer whose music was burned by the ruling regime

was founded in Kigali, please said Monday. Nihigo fell out with the ruling Rwandan patriotic front party in 2013 after he composed songs that questioned the government's tight control of the legacy of the 1994 Rwanda genocide. Some of these critics have questioned the official narrative of the genocide and spoken out about the tens of thousands of reprisal killings of Hutus carried out by Rwandan troops after the genocide. These killings have been investigated and reported by the UN and Human Rights Watch, but this is a version of history that the Kagame government denies

and has been trying to suppress for decades. If Kagame makes such a deal with Britain, makes another deal with Denmark, with the European Union, with all these rich countries, then they cannot turn around and ask for accountability for these crimes, for human rights abuses, or for the state of governance within Rwanda. Because you don't ask me, I don't ask you. And I think that's very, very important for Kagame, because that's one way of sheltering himself from accountability. for Kagame because that's one way of sheltering himself from accountability. And I'm always surprised, on a more personal note, because I know Kagame very well. We're in the trenches together. We're both refugees from Rwanda who grew up in refugee camps in Uganda. And I have always been wondering why Kagame would be interested in doing something like that to refugees,

well knowing that that was his background. It's interesting, though, because when he's been asked about it, he rejects this idea that Rwanda is doing this for money. So it would be mistaken for people to just make a conclusion, you know, Rwanda got money. It's not trading. We are not trading human beings, please. This is not the case.

We are actually helping. Yes, but you see, a charter begins at home. He imprisons opponents. He's like, you know, an absolute monarch. There are no rights of the people, no independent press. He goes for elections and is elected 100%, 99 point something percent.

All these things do not demonstrate somebody who presides over a compassionate government that looks after the interests of its own people. So how could he possibly be the one to show compassion to refugees? But if you look at the messaging coming from the UK government, you'd think that Rwanda is a humanitarian haven. First and foremost, Rwanda is a safe and secure country with the respect for the rule of law.

And clearly, a range of institutions that evolved and developed over time. And in the West, Rwanda does have this image as a country that's really rebuilt itself since the genocide. It's a progressive place. What do people not understand about Rwanda, do you think? The current perception in the West is a product of two things. One, it is true that given what the country suffered in 1994, it's a test to the resilience of the ordinary Rwandan people that despite the tragedies of the past, they've been able to gather their lives and be able to function. But it's also a product of guilt of the international community, what the international community was not able to do in 1994.

And the regime, and I used to be a part of it. I used to be to sell that kind of line here in Washington, D.C. and in Europe and at the United Nations. And we used to argue that since you did nothing when we're in need, then you do not even have a right to question what we're doing. And the guilt of the international community has created that industry of promoting the successes of Rwanda without looking at the other side, the damage on kwa hivyo kutoka kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa and the United States. And these two countries have done everything possible in terms of diplomatic support, in terms of financial support, in terms of political support,

but also in terms of shielding Kagame and his regime from accountability of these abuses that have taken place. connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing.

In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Cups. Back in the UK, critics are pushing back against the British government's claims about the merits of the Rwanda plan. For example, that it's going to disrupt the business of smugglers. Here's Bella. Priti Patel makes a huge number of claims about all sorts of things, but I'm yet to see her make any sort of public policy claim that is backed up by

evidence. Investigative journalists that have spoken to the people that operate these criminal enterprises are really clear that it's policies like these that actually fuel their business model. By clamping down and excluding people and providing no safe routes to reach the UK, the government creates a black market in which people smuggling flourishes. And it's just basic common sense. And what about this idea that it's going to deter people from crossing the channel on small boats? People have died doing that. What do experts say about that? Is it actually likely to deter people from crossing that way?

Again, there is absolutely no evidence that it's going to deter people. I think it's important to look at the Australian example. They implemented this policy with very similar justifications. And actually, in the year after their policy of offshoring was implemented, there was an increase to its highest levels, the number of people that were crossing by boat to Australia. And I actually saw there was a survey recently of more than 60 asylum seekers in Calais and in Dunkirk, carried out by this organisation Care for Calais. And it found that three quarters of these people said that they would still try to make the journey. Government had hoped that these plans would deter people from making this crossing using

these tiny boats that are not fit for purpose. But that doesn't seem to be the case as the weather has improved, the numbers of people making this journey has increased. It's really through having those conversations and understanding people's histories that you realise decisions to make dangerous journeys to the UK aren't taken lightly, but they're taken because people feel like they have no other option. And no matter how badly the UK says it's going to treat people, for many, many people, it will still feel like a better option than the others that they have in front of them. Ali Ghaderi is an asylum seeker who lives in the UK, and he remembers this feeling of

desperation. People who are coming by boat, you know, they don't want to break the law, but there isn't any other, there isn't any safe route for them to follow. So that's the only possible way to come to the UK. Ali fled Iran when he was 15. He found himself alone in Greece and made his way to the UK. He's now a student and volunteers

with a group called Safe Passage, which works with child refugees. People who are leaving everything behind, their culture, their family, their home, their whole life, you know, to come to this country, to the UK. They're not coming here to take a selfie with a big man, for example. They're coming here because their life is at risk.

They're looking for safety, you know. They don't want to die. They don't want to die. So there's been a lot of outrage over the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, but that's actually just one part of the Nationality and Borders Act. Critics have been calling this the anti-refugee bill, and it introduces a number of other controversial changes. One of them gives the government the power to strip people's citizenship without notice if they're seen to pose a serious threat to the UK and if they're eligible

to get citizenship somewhere else. And that means people like Ali, who are already settled in the UK, are vulnerable to having their citizenship taken away. I guess, yeah, I feel like I'm not secure here. Going for a protest or something can put you at risk or even helping someone else. I guess, yeah, I feel like I'm not secure here. Going for a protest or something can put you at risk or even helping someone else. I mean, I have a fear, to be honest. I'm worried about what's going on. I'm working hard. I'm trying to build my life here. Anybody who has a parent who is of another nationality, you know, is potentially vulnerable. You know, I have a father in his late 70s whose father was a Nigerian national. My dad was born in the UK and has lived here most of his life.

The idea that he could potentially be stripped of his citizenship in the only country that he's ever called home is clearly deeply, deeply alarming. And you obviously work with a lot of refugees. What have you been hearing from them about the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda and all these other changes that the government is trying to introduce. People are absolutely terrified of this government and they're terrified of this policy. My caseworkers at Detention Action have been speaking to people that are currently detained in immigration detention centres who are severely, severely traumatised, are re-triggered by announcements like this and are really fearing for their lives and their future

as a result of this policy. We know that many people are feeling suicidal. What has been the reaction to these changes from the public and inside Parliament? How are people talking about this in the UK? There has been pretty widespread revulsion about this policy across the British public. You may have read that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest figure in our established Church of England, has denounced the policy. you know, figure in our established Church of England, has denounced the policy.

It cannot carry the weight of the resurrection that was revealed first to the least valued. For as a policy, it privileges the rich and the strong. Sadly, this government seems intent on kind of whipping up hatred and division and fear. And really, I think this policy is intended to speak to a small core of their voter base, but which by no means represents even the majority of their voter base, let alone the majority of the public at large. Given that the Brexit referendum was successful for vote leave, they may have extrapolated from that that general kind of foreigner bashing, anti-immigrant rhetoric is a vote winner. And I think that might partly explain how we've ended up in this place. In response to criticisms of the policy, Priti Patel has said that the things that she's heard opposition MPs and the media say about Rwanda were based on ignorance and stereotypes.

And that she'd found the, quote, disparaging and prejudicial talk about a UK partner offensive. a UK partner offensive. You used the word trade earlier, which I've just been thinking about, and I wanted to zoom out a little bit beyond the UK. So Australia has done something similar before this. I know the EU is in talks with the government of Niger to also keep undocumented people there while their cases are being processed. And I've also heard Denmark is in talks with Rwanda to figure out a similar arrangement to the UK. And I wonder just what do you make of this trend of richer countries offloading migrants to poorer countries to deal with them? It's deeply neo-colonial and it should not stand. These are countries invariably that are still dealing with the ravages of colonialism

for which they've never received proper acknowledgement or reparation. And yet now those same states that practiced, you know, horrendous colonial crimes are now effectively trying to pay these countries for further trades in human beings, again, predominantly of Black and brown people. The parallels to colonialism have also been on Teo Jen's mind. He became a refugee when he was just a year old, and he's lived in places like Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. And these countries never sent my late mother and the four of us, my siblings, and many other refugees. Poor countries have shown more hospitality

to these poor refugees coming within their boundaries. What justification does a rich country have to send away people other than that these people are simply undesirable? So that's why the question of refugees is very much dear to my heart, because out of my six years of life, 50 have been refugees. When I hear, you know, Mr. Johnson and Ms. Patera saying,

oh, we are taking them away from smugglers, no refugee comes into being a refugee by coming in British Airways or coming in British Airways or coming in well-trodden paths. No! We take extremely risky undertaking to become a refugee because it's simply comparing life and death. If most of these people, if they were not Muslims,

if they were not Arabs, if they were not blacks, if there were some other race that Mr. Johnson and company find more acceptable, I do not think that they would be sold into this kind of very immoral deal. So for us Africans, for us blacks who look at these things and who are students of history,

we see a striking parallel. What fueled, in the past, rich countries to enslave other peoples? In the past, rich countries to enslave other peoples. What kind of ideology that was underlying the whole process of colonization? It is racism. The moment you say every life matters and your life is as important as mine, when I run to you, the first thing that you should be doing is not simply to deport me to another country. And of course, the greatest moral deportation was slavery.

So the modern times comparison in terms of the ideological underpinning of sending away refugees who are coming to your shores, really, that's exactly what we are witnessing today. When the plan was first announced in mid-April, Boris Johnson said he'd hope to see the first migrants handed a one-way ticket to Rwanda within six weeks. This week, his spokesperson admitted that it would be a matter of months before any refugees are deported. He pointed to the legal challenges as one of the obstacles.

But on Thursday, Priti Patel made clear that plans to get the flights moving are still very much underway. The British public rightly expect us to crack down hard on those abusing our system. My officials are working to finalise our first relocation flight to Rwanda as we work to break the model of the people smuggling gangs. And that's all for this week. Our sound designer is Graham McDonald, and our showrunner is Adrian Chung. Nothing is Foreign is a co-production of CBC News and CBC Podcasts. Willow Smith is our senior producer, and Nick McCabe-Locos is our executive producer. Our theme music is by Joseph Chabison. If you liked this episode and you want to help new listeners find the show, please take a second to rate and review us wherever you're listening. You can also find us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram at CBC Podcasts. I'm

Tamara Kendacker. Thank you so much for listening, and I will talk to you back here next week. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.