Rwanda, which gained global attention last year due to an agreement with the United Kingdom to accept its rejected asylum-seekers, is now in discussions with the United States regarding a similar proposition. This development signals a widening of U.S. efforts to send deportees to third countries. Such efforts already include agreements with nations like Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Panama, though formalized arrangements with countries in Africa, Asia, or Europe are lacking.
Rwanda is noted for its significant recovery from the 1994 genocide, during which over 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Under the leadership of President Paul Kagame, Rwanda has presented itself as a region of stability, although human rights organizations accuse the government of repressing dissent through harsh measures. Despite being one of the most densely populated countries on the African continent, Rwanda has positioned itself as a solution to the growing migrant issues troubling many Western nations.
Confirming the ongoing discussions, Rwanda’s foreign minister stated on Monday that talks with the U.S. are in the preliminary stages, with the potential for a migration agreement involving deported individuals. Further specifics were not disclosed, but the minister emphasized Rwanda’s historic dedication to problem-solving in migration matters.
While the U.S. Department of State opted not to comment specifically on the potential agreement, it maintained that collaboration with international governments forms a core pillar of its migration deterrence strategy. Rwandan media reports have indicated that such a partnership might entail the U.S. financially supporting programs that integrate migrants into society via stipends and employment services.
Previously, a contentious agreement between Rwanda and the U.K. in 2022 proposed the transfer of migrants who had entered the U.K. through irregular means to Rwanda for asylum processing. However, the arrangement collapsed amidst legal challenges and opposition from human rights advocates who labeled it unethical. Criticism was partly due to the immense distance involved and the perception that migrants were being sent to a place they had not chosen.
When the U.K.’s Labour government took over, they abandoned the deal, branding it a costly failure. Although no deportations took place, expenses linked to the collapsed plan reached significant sums, including a £290 million payment to Rwanda, a sum which the country is not obliged to return.
Human rights organizations have long highlighted issues related to Rwanda, pointing to alleged abuses such as the deaths of individuals in government custody and the mistreatment of those seeking refuge elsewhere. Kigali’s government has often refuted such allegations, even reacting strongly against claims involving a U.S. resident who was forcibly taken to Rwanda from Dubai, an incident resolved under U.S. diplomatic pressure.
Further complicating their international stance, Rwanda’s military involvement in neighboring Congo raised alarms. The United Nations accused Rwanda of backing rebels in the mineral-abundant eastern Congo, which prompted some Western nations to cut ties or limit aid. The Rwandan government defends its actions as protective measures for ethnic Tutsis in Congo.
The Trump administration, previously taking steps like sanctioning a Rwandan minister due to rebel affiliations, is now attempting to secure a peace agreement. A partnership concerning deportees from the U.S. could potentially enhance Rwanda’s rapport with the U.S. and other key nations.
Historically, Rwanda engaged with the U.N.’s refugee agency in 2019 to assist sojourners evacuated from Libya. These migrants were held in terrible conditions while trying to reach Europe. The U.N. transit center in Rwanda can house 700 evacuees temporarily until long-term solutions, such as resettlement, are identified.
Rwanda had previously unveiled facilities like a refurbished Kigali hostel capable of housing 100 migrants as part of its agreement with the U.K. before it fell through. The plan would have allowed migrants to remain or return to their countries of origin, with Rwanda bearing financial responsibility for up to five years. Whether these terms would apply to any U.S.-Rwanda deal remains uncertain.