European asylum expert says Britain’s Rwanda refugee plan IS a sensible approach to tackle illegal migration and would have worked if UK had not ‘handled it amateurishly’

The Rwanda approach to refugees was not the wrong approach at all, a leading migration expert has said.

Austrian migration expert Gerald Knaus is founder of the European Stability Initiative (ESI), which has advised the German government on migration and asylum policy. 

He was also instrumental in designing the EU-Turkey refugee deal in 2016, which significantly reduced irregular migration across the Aegean Sea.

Today he is a fierce advocate of outsourcing of European asylum processes to African countries. 

Speaking to Germany‘s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) newspaper, Gerald Knaus said that the UK’s failed Rwanda scheme should not be seen as a rejection of the idea itself, but rather the result of poor planning by the British government.

‘It was handled amateurishly by the Tories. The British government had already set a cut-off date for the transfer of all asylum seekers arriving after that date, before clarifying how credible asylum procedures could be ensured in Rwanda.’

‘As was to be expected, the courts in London intervened against this. It was only after the courts’ justified objections had been clarified that the government signed a new agreement with Rwanda at the end of 2023.’

‘In it, Rwanda committed itself to not deporting those who would be brought from the UK to the country, even if their asylum application was rejected. 

‘Thus, rejected asylum seekers could also have remained in Rwanda. To this end, the national asylum procedure was improved.’

According to Knaus, the revised 2023 agreement between the UK and Rwanda, which improved national asylum processes and even involved international judges, shows that asylum procedures can be done properly in Rwanda.

He said that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been successfully conducting asylum operations in Rwanda since 2019, bringing refugees from Libya for processing. 

‘Rwanda is safe for this,’ Knaus emphasized, adding that ‘if the UNHCR can do it, so can other governments.’

‘The Tories were voted out of office this summer and the current government is opposed to the project for political reasons and has suspended cooperation with Rwanda. 

‘However, we now know that proper asylum procedures are possible in Rwanda.’

‘The UN Refugee Agency UNHCR has been bringing thousands of asylum seekers from Libya to Rwanda for asylum procedures since 2019.’

‘Rwanda is safe for this, otherwise the UNHCR would not be able to do it. Those granted asylum can either stay in Rwanda or apply for a resettlement programme, mainly to the US or Canada. So it can be done.’

Despite political resistance, particularly from new UK leadership, Knaus argued that the Rwanda model could offer a solution to irregular migration across Europe.

He said that a properly managed and legally sound agreement with African countries, combined with development aid and legal migration options, could reduce deaths in the Mediterranean and save lives.

And he slammed the criticism by Germany’s Green Party about the idea of relocating European asylum procedures to Africa.

‘Agreements with safe third countries are a moral alternative to violence, death and lawlessness at Europe’s borders. And to the current loss of control.’

‘In order to control irregular migration and reduce deaths in the Mediterranean, reputable asylum procedures in third countries are legitimate, even if they are linked to the goal of simultaneously reducing irregular migration. 

‘We have to move away from the combative term “externalisation”.’