The new UN human rights chief has called on the British government to review its plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, warning that in the past such “offshoring” schemes have led to “deeply inhumane” treatment of refugees.
In his first public comments on the dispute since taking office two months ago, Volker Türk dismissed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s description of the £140m deal as “common sense”, saying that as well as being legally and ethically problematic, it also is “very expensive” and unlikely to work.
“You cannot transfer your responsibilities to another country in the way that is intended [by the UK government]Turk told the Guardian. “It does raise very serious concerns both from an international human rights perspective and from an international refugee law perspective.”
Asked if the government should go back to the drawing board, he said: “Yes, absolutely.”
The High Court ruled on Monday that a Conservative plan to send people seeking protection in the UK to the central African country was legal, rejecting a plea by asylum seekers, charities and the border workers’ union to stop it.
The victory was partial as the judges also said the government failed to “properly consider the circumstances” of eight people it tried to deport under the scheme in June, in one case confusing facts relating to one Syrian Kurd with another Syrian in what the court considered to be “not an inconsequential error.”
However, the Home Secretary was quick to announce his intention to take the partnership forward “at scale and as soon as possible”. Suella Braverman claims she is backed by the “vast majority of the British people” in her desire to end the people-smuggling gangs that facilitate the crossing of the English Channel for asylum seekers.
More than 40,000 people crossed the Channel in small boats in 2022, the highest number since data began to be collected in 2018. The journey is dangerous: last week four people died after their boat ran aground off the coast of Kent.
Four people died last week after a small boat got into trouble in a canal off the Kent coast. Photo: Garrett Fuller/Pennsylvania
Rwanda’s government has said it currently has the capacity to take in around 200 people – less than 0.5% of all who have crossed this year, and rights groups say it is nowhere near enough to be a deterrent factor.
Turk, who succeeded Michelle Bachelet as UN high commissioner for human rights in October, said there were “ways and means” for governments to deal with smuggling gangs and ensure those in need of protection received it.
But the Rwanda program is likely to do neither, he added.
“Of course, it seems very dramatic to send people to Rwanda – but will it happen?” [do] The trick?” he said. “Which is to make sure that those who need international refugee protection are accepted as such and those who don’t are discouraged from doing so? I very much doubt that, and actually the story proves it if you look at just some of the things [we] saw in the Australian context.’
Turk, an Austrian lawyer and former assistant high commissioner at the UN refugee agency, said he had seen how Australia’s offshore processing centers in Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, had been marked by human rights abuses. The latter was closed after the country’s Supreme Court declared it illegal.
“The way asylum seekers were treated on Nauru and Manus was deeply, deeply inhumane,” Turk said. The UK government has rejected any comparison between the two schemes as “fundamentally flawed”, insisting that their asylum applications for deportees will be processed by Rwanda in accordance with international human rights law and will not be detained while this process continues .
Responding to the high court ruling, the Prime Minister said she wanted to provide “a system where if you come to the UK illegally you will not be allowed to stay and we will be able to send you back to your own country if it is safe or a safe alternative like Rwanda’.
Sunak refuses to say whether his asylum plans may require UK to leave ECtHR – video
He added: “I think that is the common sense position of the vast majority of the British public.”
Speaking from Geneva, Turk said: “Of course, from my point of view, this is not common sense.” He also called on the government to tone down its rhetoric and “emotional language” after previously criticizing Braverman’s “appalling” use of the word “invasion” to describe the crossing of the Channel.
“It’s not that there aren’t problems with irregular arrivals. That’s clear, and it’s a problem that one has to deal with… but we have to remove the emotions, including some of the emotional language. We have to deal with it as a matter that is guided by international standards, international rights and international refugee law,” he said.
Despite the high court ruling, there will soon be no flight of asylum seekers to Kigali. More appeals are expected. An order from the European Court of Human Rights in the summer prevented any deportations “until three weeks after the final domestic decision in ongoing judicial review proceedings”.
A Home Office spokesman said: “Our ground-breaking migration partnership with Rwanda will provide support for people relocated to build new lives there, while disrupting the business model of people-smuggling gangs.
“It was found to be legal by the High Court on Monday and the Home Secretary has committed to making it work to prevent dangerous, illegal and unnecessary travel.
“Comparing this policy and the Australian model is fundamentally flawed and inaccurate; under our approach, people sent to Rwanda are not detained, but relocated and free to leave if they wish.
Add Comment