Leaked documents show the Foreign Office has shortlisted more countries to which to deport migrants, as the Safety of Rwanda Bill is set to receive royal assent
By Matt Dathan
Apr 15, 2024 12:17 PM
Britain has entered talks to replicate the Rwanda migrant deportation scheme with Armenia, Ivory Coast, Costa Rica and Botswana, according to leaked documents that reveal the government’s extensive search for another third-country deal.
Several South American countries including Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Brazil and Colombia have also been approached but were viewed as less likely to be interested in what the government describes as a “third-country asylum processing deal”.
A list of African countries including Cape Verde, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Angola and Sierra Leone were put on a reserve list that would be approached if other targets failed.
Other African countries including Morocco, Tunisia, Namibia and The Gambia “explicitly declined” to enter technical discussions.
The details are revealed in a tranche of internal government documents seen by The Times. They relate to work undertaken by the Home Office and Foreign Office during the past 18 months to find countries that might be interested in replicating the
Rwanda scheme.
A long list of countries were assessed against a feasibility criteria, but several rejected the UK’s advances or were ruled unviable by officials. The Foreign Office identified Ivory Coast, Botswana, Armenia and Costa Rica as countries to prioritise. The government pressed ahead with talks with representatives from these countries on agreeing a similar UK-Rwanda deal, although progress with all four has stalled because of the ongoing problems with the Rwanda deal.
[...]
The UK government entered talks with four countries despite concerns raised by the Foreign Office about each of them.
Ivory Coast has “exceptionally close ties” to France, and officials warned that pursuing a deal with the west African country was a risk to Anglo-French relations. They also said that the country suffers from
instability spilling over from the Sahel and that its management of refugees is “functional but overstretched”.
Costa Rica was chosen as a good candidate country given its “positive relationship” with the UNCHR, the UN’s refugee agency. Officials were impressed with the country’s migration laws and policies that guaranteed social integration and easy and widespread access to medical facilities, education and employment. However, they warned that the immigration process in Costa Rica can be costly, complex and “challenging to navigate”.
Botswana had struggled with providing sufficient accommodation for the current caseload of refugees. However, negotiations with the country were more advanced, although its government stated in talks that it would need to change its immigration laws.
Armenia is awaiting the outcome of the Rwanda policy. Technical talks with the Armenian government began in September but progress has been stalled. A spokesman for the Armenian embassy in London said: “While we have a broad political dialogue with the UK, regarding the topic raised in the publication there have not been substantial or technical talks.”
A government spokesman said: “The UK is continuing to work with a range of international partners to tackle global illegal migration challenges. Our focus right now is passing the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which builds on the Illegal Migration Act, and putting plans in place to get flights off the ground as soon as possible.”
Seven countries were ruled out
Seven countries were ruled out by officials as non-starters.
Kenya had previously rejected migration deals with the UK owing to concerns over “a new form of colonialism”. Pursuing an agreement with Kenya posed “significant risks to the
UK’s bilateral relationship”, an assessment said.
The Foreign Office warned that revisiting an agreement with Kenya would “elicit a strong reaction” and advised against pursuing a deal because the country is a strategic partner in peacekeeping and in the fight against al-Shabaab, an Islamist terror network in the region.
Kenya is also the first choice as a staging post for any evacuation of British nationals and dependents from a number of neighbouring countries in the region.
Benin, in West Africa, had shown “some interest” in a deal in July 2021 but the Foreign Office advised against pursuing a new deal because previous talks were slow and the US and France had a “difficult relationship” with the country over its poor human rights record.
Djibouti was discounted because of its scarcity of water and sanitation, with officials pointing out it had endemic disease, famine and drought.
Gabon was ruled out owing to concerns over its lack of democracy, freedom of expression and “significant human rights concerns”.
Guinea-Bissau was also dismissed because of frequent military coup attempts, poor human rights and the risk that migrants relocated there would migrate back to the UK.
Liberia and
Azerbaijan were also discounted as part of the audit.
[...]
The Home Office said that countries lacking a well-established asylum system that would likely delay implementation of the agreements should be disregarded.
However, it questioned why Uruguay and Belize had not been included as suitable candidates, with Uruguay’s established asylum system and negative population growth cited as reasons why it would make a good candidate country.
The Foreign Office had rejected Uruguay because it played an important role supporting British sovereignty of the Falklands. A senior official wrote: “Uruguay is a key partner for the Falklands for logistical and medical support and it was judged that a TCAP arrangement with Uruguay carried significant risks for our Falklands equities.”
The Foreign Office also rejected Belize. The Home Office argued that Belize was a “suitable candidate country,” pointing out it is a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and has a strong history of welcoming refugees, while Britain has a strong bilateral relationship with it, which suggested it could be a “promising country”.
However, the Foreign Office said Belize was deprioritised because of its lack of a robust asylum system and its small population of approximately 408,000. Suriname was also discounted due to its small population, approximately 586,000. Officials stated that neither country would have the physical or administrative infrastructure to absorb more than a few hundred migrants from the UK.
Officials warned that pursuing deals with unviable countries such as these would undermine value for money as well as the potential deterrent effect given they would have to cap the number of migrants deported to the countries.
