What comes to mind when you hear the word Rwanda? Be honest. Some will quite naturally think of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, one of the most painful chapters in modern human history. Others will turn their attention to the weather – a humid, stuffy kind of heat. The less worldly might think of a rag-tag, sand-filled country run by a militia, as they think all African countries are. How awful, according to that particular brand of thinking, that the Government has chosen this location for the processing of migrants. How utterly inhumane to send people claiming asylum from war-torn countries to, erm, Africa.
Those who have recently visited Rwanda will attest to a different image. Some 28 years of justice, reconciliation and imagination have produced a peaceful, stable economic powerhouse. The first country to have a female-majority parliament; second in the world for female participation in the labour force; one of Africa’s fastest, most competitive economies; a model for industrialisation, with Kigali, its capital, a hub for entrepreneurialism in the Global South. In many ways this country is a shining beacon, a rare African success story.
Quite rightly, therefore, many Rwandans will be insulted by the analysis, offered this morning by many observers, particularly on the Left, that processing migrants there is an act of cruelty. They would want to highlight that this is a logical partnership, since Rwanda happens to be at the forefront of Africa’s “brain-gain” movement, which seeks to reverse the debilitating flow of young talent to Europe.
The Channel migrants – some 90 per cent of whom are working-age men – will find themselves in a country keen for young workers. Rwanda already ranks in the world’s top 20 for retaining talent, is focused on cultivating a skilled workforce, and is hungry for more driven young people to fuel its burgeoning tech-based industries. Much of the hundreds of millions expected to be paid by Westminster will finance vocational and skills training, as well as language lessons.
Some will scoff nevertheless, believing Europe is a rightful permanent destination for anyone leaving an under-developed country. This is presented as the conscionable opinion to take, and yet it shows complete disregard for the future of the African continent. If we cannot swallow the prospect of sending migrants to a hi-tech, pro-business African nation, then we are conceding that the continent will never be able to sustain itself. What is the ultimate outcome of that? More deprivation, more inequality, more wars, more young men leaving their families to make a perilous journey at the expense of people traffickers.
Others are concerned about safety, and they are right to ask questions. Rwanda is not a champion of human rights – no African nation is (and nor are some in Europe, I might add) – but it is getting there. Like most things, this is a matter of balancing risks. Are people safer in makeshift camps like the Calais “jungle”, sailing on a flimsy dinghy across the Channel or homeless on the streets of Kent than they would be in sheltered accommodation in modern Kigali? Would they be more competently handled by the Home Office in Britain, where the Government openly admits it is running out of capacity to provide care, or in a country whose systems already account for some 127,000 refugees from across the world?
We cannot begin to debate these things without correcting outdated stereotypical views. This is not a choice between compassion and savagery. Asylum seekers are not being sent to Africa to suffer. Rather, we face a question of how large a role African nations should play in organising the global flow of migrants, and how much we can trust them. The Government has placed a bet on one of the continent’s leading stars.
