ÌÇÐÄÔ­´´

 The UK’s Rwanda plan

In 2012, Australia started sending asylum seekers to offshore detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru. This policy was ‘’. People in offshore detention reported extreme levels of mental illness including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. . Australia’s policy cost an average of $1 billion (£574 million) per year. Yet, there is that offshore detention reduced the number of asylum seekers travelling to Australia by boat.

Now, the UK Government is planning on sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, in a plan that and raises . In this blog, I draw comparisons with Australia’s experience to identify four potential problems that might arise with the UK’s Rwanda plan.

Insufficient facilities and systems

When asylum seekers were , Australia’s detention centres quickly reached capacity. Conditions on Manus Island were overcrowded, with 112 asylum seekers housed in a single dormitory that resembled an aircraft hangar. Insufficient medical facilities led to delays in medical care. Serious medical conditions went untreated and some asylum seekers were forced to extract their own teeth. There were also delays in determining refugee status as neither Papua New Guinea nor Nauru had experience processing asylum applications on such a large scale.

Boris Johnson has suggested that . However, the accommodation earmarked for asylum seekers , suggesting a disconnect between the Government’s ambitions and current capacity. It is not clear that Rwanda can cope with an increased volume of refugee status determinations. In 2020, Rwanda . The United Nations Refugee Agency recently raised about the legal processes in Rwanda.

, the UK Government is likely to retain effective control over asylum seekers located offshore. Therefore, the UK Government is responsible under international law for ensuring conditions for asylum seekers meet basic human rights standards.

Asylum seekers’ safety

In Papua New Guinea and Nauru, local communities developed animosity towards asylum seekers. Because of this hostility, asylum seekers reported feeling unsafe. Some were , and when they left the detention centre.

In 2014, Manus Island locals , and injuring 77 other asylum seekers. In 2017, members of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force over a football dispute. Later that year, asylum seekers barricaded themselves in the Manus Island detention centre to resist their transfer to new accommodation. They were .

Rwanda has a . In 2018, who were protesting a reduction in their food rations.

Asylum seekers have already fled danger and persecution. There is no justification for a policy that places asylum seekers in a situation where their safety is at risk.

Psychological harm

In 2016, medical experts found that . These levels of mental illness were significantly higher than among asylum seekers living in Australia, suggesting that the offshore detention environment was a factor in their mental health issues.

There are already reports of among asylum seekers targeted for removal to Rwanda. The degree of psychological support available to asylum seekers in Rwanda is unclear. A policy that inflicts psychological harm on an already traumatised population is inhumane and should be reconsidered.

Constructive refoulement

Due to the poor conditions, long delays and psychological distress, some asylum seekers left offshore detention and returned to their countries of origin. Of 3,127 people sent offshore under Australia’s policy, . It is unclear how many of these people left before a decision on their case had been made, and how many left after receiving a negative decision on their refugee status.

One Rohingya asylum seeker : ‘But the reason why I leave PNG is there is too much torturing, they treat us as prisoners and they kill us mentally. That is more scary for me, that’s what I decided to go back.’ When a state creates an environment that compels an asylum seeker to return to their country of origin, this amounts to constructive refoulement (the return of asylum seekers to a situation where they are at risk of persecution) in violation of international law.

Evidence suggests that asylum seekers may be unlikely to remain in Rwanda. Between 2014 and 2017, 4,000 asylum seekers were sent to Rwanda by Israel. Many and attempted to seek asylum in other countries – once again undertaking dangerous journeys and vulnerable to people smugglers.

The solution

Australia’s experience suggests a number of potential problems that may emerge with the UK’s Rwanda plan. These issues will need to be closely monitored. However, there is no evidence that the UK will be any better at preventing or addressing these issues than Australia. Ultimately, the best way to prevent these problems from arising would be to abandon the policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda altogether. There is no evidence that the Rwanda plan will reduce the number of asylum seekers travelling to the UK, and there are other policy options that are less expensive and more humane.

Australia’s offshore detention policy was cruel, costly and ineffective – the UK should not follow in Australia’s footsteps.