Rwanda–United Kingdom: migration alliance and geopolitical issues

In April 2022, London and Kigali announced a "migration and economic development partnership" presented as a response to illegal crossings of the English Channel. The United Kingdom wants to transfer certain asylum seekers who have arrived irregularly on its territory to Rwanda in order to process their cases remotely and discourage departures. Kigali, for its part, sees this as an opportunity for funding and international visibility. Very quickly, however, this scheme became one of the most controversial migration projects in Europe. Its troubled fate sheds light on the new geopolitics of migration.

The terms of an unprecedented partnership

The Migration and Economic Development Partnership allows London to declare certain asylum applications "inadmissible" and transfer the individuals concerned to Rwanda. Once they arrive in Kigali, they are no longer subject to the British " " system: Rwanda examines the applications, may grant protection, and organizes integration on its soil. Those recognized as refugees are not eligible to return to the United Kingdom.

The agreement was first concluded by memorandum, then formalized by a treaty in December 2023. In April 2024, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act enshrined in law that Rwanda should be considered a "safe country." However, a few months earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled the project illegal, considering that the risk of refoulement to dangerous countries remained too high. The contrast between the court's decision and the emergency legislation fueled criticism, until the new Labour government abandoned the plan without any forced returns having taken place.

A costly operation for London, both politically and financially

Financially, the agreement represents a considerable commitment. According to the UK's National Audit Office, the UK is to pay £370 million into the Economic Transformation and Integration Fund, a Rwandan fund designed to support growth and infrastructure. In addition to these amounts, there are variable payments linked to the number of people transferred and an integration package of around £150,000 per person over five years, covering accommodation, health, education, and employment support.

The Home Office is also covering the costs of designing the scheme, litigation, training escorts, and organizing flights. Even though only a few people are being transferred on a voluntary basis, the bill is already estimated to be several hundred million pounds. Available estimates suggest that, if fully implemented, the cost for a few hundred people would have exceeded £600-700 million, which is much higher than the cost of processing applications in the UK in the traditional way. For public administrators, the ratio between expenditure and expected results is becoming difficult to justify, especially as the asylum budget is already under pressure. 

The benefits and risks for Kigali

From Rwanda's perspective, the partnership offers immediate gains. Payments to the economic transformation fund bring in scarce foreign currency and finance visible projects that are useful for the country's modernization. Kigali also highlights the creation of local jobs and the transfer of skills in the management of asylum procedures.

Rwanda seeks to confirm its image as a reliable partner, building on its experience of hosting refugees evacuated from Libya in cooperation with the UNHCR. It is positioning itself as an African hub for migration solutions and services. But this strategy comes at a significant reputational cost. NGOs, African researchers, and several UN mechanisms criticize the risk of turning Southern countries into buffer zones for Northern flows. Regional tensions, particularly around the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, further complicate the perception of Rwanda as an exemplary partner in the " ." When the United Kingdom withdrew from the scheme and Kigali raised the issue of financial compensation, the power dynamics between the two countries became clear.

International reactions and geopolitical implications

In the United Kingdom, the project has deeply polarized the debate. Part of the Conservative camp and a fringe of public opinion welcomed it as a sign of firmness in the face of crossings of the English Channel and smuggling networks. Other politicians, including those in economic circles, were concerned about the cost, legal uncertainty, and impact on the country's image. Churches, civil service unions, and numerous human rights NGOs denounced the measure as incompatible with the UK's international obligations.

On the multilateral stage, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe, and several independent experts warned of the possible knock-on effect of this type of scheme. The fear is that outsourcing will become the norm, to the detriment of international solidarity and the quality of protection offered to asylum seekers.

A precedent for future migration alliances

Even though it has been suspended, the Rwanda-UK partnership sets an important precedent. It highlights the vulnerability of highly politicized schemes to legal uncertainties, changes in political majorities, and international pressure. For London, the episode reveals the financial and political cost of a strategy focused on extraterritorial deterrence rather than reform of the asylum system. For Kigali, it highlights the delicate balance between economic gains, diplomatic visibility, and exposure to regional controversies.

Future migration alliances, whether involving Rwanda or other third countries, will be assessed in light of this precedent, both in terms of their financial sustainability and their legal and geopolitical soundness.