Rwanda agrees to accept ‘third-country' deportations from the US
On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals.
Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees.
'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency.
But the Trump administration's efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to 'third-party countries' they have no personal connections to.
Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants.
Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a 'dumping ground' for migrants with criminal records.
In this week's statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country.
'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,' she said.
'Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.'
Trump's mass deportation campaign
In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country's population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million.
But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort.
In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his 'One Big Beautiful Bill', which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors.
An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses.
But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations.
Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals.
Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to 'third-party countries' where they may not even speak the language.
Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp.
Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump's allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices.
El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented.
The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge's order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place.
Deportations to Africa
In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start 'third-party' deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights.
Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds.
The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US.
But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to.
That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals.
Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan.
The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them 'sickos' and 'barbaric'. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4.
The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent.
They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan's custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal.
'The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,' the justices wrote, calling the government's actions 'flagrantly unlawful'.
In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen.
'This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,' administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media.
Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison.
Cosying up to Trump?
Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights.
Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known.
Rwanda also has set parameters for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete.
But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration.
In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda's support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC.
The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development.
In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government's recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that 'appeasing President Trump pays'.
Muganwa explained that Tuesday's agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries' shared bond.
'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said.
Rwanda previously struck a deal in 2022 with the United Kingdom to accept asylum seekers from that country.
But the British Supreme Court nixed the agreement in 2023, ruling that Rwanda was not a safe third country to send asylum seekers to.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
31 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Could Trump's trade strategy forge new alliances against him?
Russia, India, China and Brazil refuse to bend to US tariffs. Brazil, India, China and Russia remain firmly in Donald Trump's sights as targets for his tariffs. Others, like the European Union, have caved and negotiated deals. But could the United States president's confrontational stance forge new alliances, among those who have not, against Trump? Presenter: Adrian Finighan Guests: Einar Tangen – China specialist and senior fellow at the Taihe Institute Gustavo de Carvalho – Senior researcher in the geopolitics of the Global South at the South African Institute of International Affairs David McWilliams – Economist, author and podcast host
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Public opinion is split as US marks 80th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing
On August 6, 1945, the United States became the first and only country in history to carry out a nuclear attack when it dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. While the death toll of the bombing remains a subject of debate, at least 70,000 people were killed, though other figures are nearly twice as high. Three days later, the US dropped another atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing at least 40,000 people. The stunning toll on Japanese civilians at first seemed to have little impact on public opinion in the US, where pollsters found approval for the bombing reached 85 percent in the days afterwards. To this day, US politicians continue to credit the bombing with saving American lives and ending World War II. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, perceptions have become increasingly mixed. A Pew Research Center poll last month indicated that Americans are split almost evenly into three categories. Nearly a third of respondents believe the use of the bomb was justified. Another third feels it was not. And the rest are uncertain about deciding either way. 'The trendline is that there is a steady decline in the share of Americans who believe these bombings were justified at the time,' Eileen Yam, the director of science and society research at Pew Research Center, told Al Jazeera in a recent phone call. 'This is something Americans have gotten less and less supportive of as time has gone by.' Tumbling approval rates Doubts about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the advent of nuclear weapons in general, did not take long to set in. 'From the beginning, it was understood that this was something different, a weapon that could destroy entire cities,' said Kai Bird, a US author who has written about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His Pulitzer Prize-winning book, American Prometheus, served as the basis for director Christopher Nolan's 2023 film, Oppenheimer. Bird pointed out that, even in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, some key politicians and public figures denounced it as a war crime. Early critics included physicist Albert Einstein and former President Herbert Hoover, who was quick to speak out against the civilian bloodshed. 'The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul,' Hoover wrote within days of the bombing. Over time, historians have increasingly cast doubt on the most common justification for the atomic attacks: that they played a decisive role in ending World War II. Some academics point out that other factors likely played a larger role in the Japanese decision to surrender, including the Soviet Union's declaration of war against the island nation on August 8. Others have speculated whether the bombings were meant mostly as a demonstration of strength as the US prepared for its confrontation with the Soviet Union in what would become the Cold War. Accounts from Japanese survivors and media reports also played a role in changing public perceptions. John Hersey's 1946 profile of six victims, for instance, took up an entire edition of The New Yorker magazine. It chronicled, in harrowing detail, everything from the crushing power of the blast to the fever, nausea and death brought on by radiation sickness. By 1990, a Pew poll found that a shrinking majority in the US approved of the atomic bomb's use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only 53 percent felt it was merited. Rationalising US use of force But even at the close of the 20th century, the legacy of the attacks remained contentious in the US. For the 50th anniversary of the bombing in 1995, the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, had planned a special exhibit. But it was cancelled amid public furore over sections of the display that explored the experiences of Japanese civilians and the debate about the use of the atomic bomb. US veterans groups argued that the exhibit undermined their sacrifices, even after it underwent extensive revision. 'The exhibit still says in essence that we were the aggressors and the Japanese were the victims,' William Detweiler, a leader at the American Legion, a veterans group, told The Associated Press at the time. Incensed members of Congress opened an investigation, and the museum's director resigned. The exhibit, meanwhile, never opened to the public. All that remained was a display of the Enola Gay, the aeroplane that dropped the first atomic bomb. Erik Baker, a lecturer on the history of science at Harvard University, says that the debate over the atomic bomb often serves as a stand-in for larger questions about the way the US wields power in the world. 'What's at stake is the role of World War II in legitimising the subsequent history of the American empire, right up to the current day,' he told Al Jazeera. Baker explained that the US narrative about its role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan — the main 'Axis Powers' in World War II — has been frequently referenced to assert the righteousness of US interventions around the world. 'If it was justifiable for the US to not just go to war but to do 'whatever was necessary' to defeat the Axis powers, by a similar token, there can't be any objection to the US doing what is necessary to defeat the 'bad guys' today,' he added. A resurgence of nuclear anxiety But as the generations that lived through World War II grow older and pass away, cultural shifts are emerging in how different age groups approach US intervention — and use of force — abroad. The scepticism is especially pronounced among young people, large numbers of whom have expressed dissatisfaction with policies such as US support for Israel's war in Gaza. In an April 2024 poll, the Pew Research Center found a dramatic generational divide among Americans over the question of global engagement. Approximately 74 percent of older respondents, aged 65 and up, expressed a strong belief that the US should play an active role on the world stage. But only 33 percent of younger respondents, aged 18 to 35, felt the same way. Last month's Pew poll on the atomic bomb also found stark differences in age. People over the age of 65 were more than twice as likely to believe that the bombings were justified than people between the ages of 18 and 29. Yam, the Pew researcher, said that age was the 'most pronounced factor' in the results, beating out other characteristics, such as party affiliation and veteran status. The 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing also coincides with a period of renewed anxiety about nuclear weapons. US President Donald Trump, for instance, repeatedly warned during his re-election campaign in 2024 that the globe was on the precipice of 'World War III'. 'The threat is nuclear weapons,' Trump told a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia. 'That can happen tomorrow.' 'We're at a place where, for the first time in more than three decades, nuclear weapons are back at the forefront of international politics,' said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US-based think tank. Panda says that such concerns are linked to geopolitical tensions between different states, pointing to the recent fighting between India and Pakistan in May as one example. The war in Ukraine, meanwhile, has prompted Russia and the US, the world's two biggest nuclear powers, to exchange nuclear-tinged threats. And in June, the US and Israel carried out attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities with the stated aim of setting back the country's ability to develop nuclear weapons. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombings, advocates hope the shift in public opinion will encourage world leaders to turn away from nuclear sabre-rattling and work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Seth Shelden, the United Nations liaison for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, explained that countries with nuclear weapons argue that their arsenals discourage acts of aggression. But he said those arguments diminish the 'civilisation-ending' dangers of nuclear warfare. 'As long as the nuclear-armed states prioritise nuclear weapons for their own security, they're going to incentivise others to pursue them as well,' he said. 'The question shouldn't be whether nuclear deterrence can work or whether it ever has worked,' he added. 'It should be whether it will work in perpetuity.'
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Ghana's defence, environment ministers among 8 killed in helicopter crash
A helicopter crash has killed all eight people on board, including the nation's defence and environment ministers, according to Ghana's government. Defence Minister Edward Omane Boamah and Environment Minister Ibrahim Murtala Muhammed were among the victims of the crash in the southern Ashanti region of the country, said Julius Debrah, chief of staff to President John Mahama, on Wednesday. 'The president and the government extend their condolences and solidarity to the families of our comrades and soldiers who fell in their service to the nation,' said Debrah. Also among the victims were Alhaji Mohammad Muniru Limuna, deputy national security coordinator and former minister of agriculture, and Samuel Sarpong, vice chairman of Mahama's National Democratic Congress (NDC) party. Boamah was helming Ghana's defence ministry at a time when armed groups across its northern border in Burkina Faso had become increasingly restive. While Ghana has so far avoided a rebel spillover from the Sahel – unlike neighbours Togo and Benin – observers have warned of increased arms trafficking and of fighters from Burkina Faso crossing the porous border to use Ghana as a rear base. A medical doctor by training, Boamah's career in government included stints as communications minister during Mahama's previous 2012-2017 tenure. Before that, he was the deputy minister for the environment. As Ghana has pursued increased diplomacy with Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger – all ruled by military governments who have broken with the ECOWAS West African regional bloc – Boamah led a delegation to Ouagadougou in May. He had been set to release a book titled, A Peaceful Man in an African Democracy, about former President John Atta Mills, who died in 2012. The Ghanaian Armed Forces had reported earlier Wednesday that an air force helicopter had fallen off radar after taking off from Accra just after 9:00am (09:00 GMT). It had been headed towards the town of Obuasi, northwest of the capital. The statement had said that three crew and five passengers were on board, without specifying at the time that the ministers were among them. All flags were to be flown at half-staff, Debrah said, while the presidency said Mahama had cancelled his official activities for the day.
