As many are already aware, the Trump administration has promised strict mass deportation, purportedly in an effort to protect the U.S. from crime. Already, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims 600,000 people have been deported since January. Shockingly to supporters and opponents of immigration alike, some of these deportees have been sent to countries other than their countries of origin to so-called ‘third countries’. These deportees have no connections to these countries and are often held without access to legally mandated counsel under international law. So far, these third countries are the African nations of Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Ghana. The deportees being held in legal limbo while in ‘third countries’ face corruption and poor living standards; but beyond the unprecedented move to use third countries, this policy decision raises interesting questions relating to a new era of political relations and development between African countries and the US.
On July 16, American authorities deported five men to the southern African country of Eswatini as a part of a mass deportation campaign. The deportees are Cuban, Yemeni, Vietnamese, Laotian, and Jamaican–all of them not Eswatini nationals. Already advocates have argued ‘third country’ use is illegal under international law, but to make matters worse, none of these deportees have been formally charged with any crime in either the United States or Eswatini, yet continue to be held in prison. As of September 25, over three months after their initial deportation, the Eswatini judge failed to appear and deliberate on any of the five cases, leaving these men once again waiting in prison with no recourse. In addition to the lack of a speedy trial, the government has made it difficult for lawyers to provide legal counsel to these deportees. Neither the detained men nor their lawyers have been told how long they will be held for or if they will be held in Eswatini indefinitely. Further, the men’ s lawyers report unsuccessfully being able to meet with their clients neither in person nor in private due to Eswatini officials blocking them. In late July, lawyers were denied visits purportedly on account that the men did not want to meet with their counsel, despite calls with family confirming these detainees were never told their lawyers were present. Some advocates have accused the Eswatini government of stalling the case to temper criticism from those within the U.S. and Eswatini itself.
Under international humanitarian law, civilians detained in armed conflicts must be informed of the reason for their arrest and have their internment reviewed by a court as soon as possible. Even prisoners of war during armed conflicts have the legal right to a fair trial. Not only are these men not in armed conflict, they aren’t prisoners of war either, yet they have been denied the legal protections the former two categories enjoy. Article 11 of the UN Charter enshrines the right to a fair trial and encourages member states to align their legal systems with a comprehensive outline for human rights. Yet, the countries that have accepted US deportees all have serious, credible human rights violation allegations. This perhaps serves to explain the US administration’s choice of these countries, as they are less likely to question the legality of these deportations.
However, these men are not alone. At least three other African countries (South Sudan, Ghana, and Rwanda) have publicly taken American deportees as part of President Trump’s anti-immigration policies. As of late September, thirty U.S. deportees are being detained in one of these four African countries. Rwanda alone promised to accept an additional two hundred and fifty U.S. deportees. Ghana accepted two American deportees that were then secretly dumped in neighboring Togo without their documents or Togolese permission. These men managed to find a hotel to house them where they are currently stuck, similar to the five men held in Eswatini. In both the Ghanaian and Eswatini cases, there has been a lack of foresight, legal standard, and transparency in these third-country deportations.
While perhaps the conditions of these deportations aren’t surprising, the motivations of these countries are. What would motivate Eswatini, which plays a minor role in international politics, to entangle itself with Trump’s domestic and international policies? One could hypothesize that the $5.1 million USD promised to Eswatini in exchange for accepting 160 deportees would be a major incentive for this landlocked manufacturing country. Taking this deal secures Eswatini $31,875 per deportee, a lucrative deal that would be difficult to decline. Similar monetary compensation has been disbursed to Rwanda who claims their history with displacement has motivated them to accept deportees and provide “workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support” to give them “the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.” It is this second part that should pique one’s interest. It reads as if Rwanda is essentially importing a population of workers to boost their own economy. However, it is hard to decipher these motivations, because the information available about these U.S.-African deportee deals have been limited by authorities on both sides.
On the other hand, teasing out the U.S.’s motivation is more convoluted. First, we need to make sense of the decision to deport non-citizens to third countries. One possibility is that the Trump administration is piloting a program in small quantities to test U.S. court leniency and public opinion towards mass deportation. Should this program work well, DHS might seek to extend the program in the future from a couple to thousands, which would allow President Trump to deliver on promises of strict mass deportation and strengthen his political position. Second, we need to examine why these countries in particular? Of all the countries in the world, or even the select countries that are close allies, why did the U.S. choose Ghana, Eswatini, South Sudan, and Rwanda to make these deals with? As previously mentioned, part of the decision might be ascribed to the weak legal systems in these countries. Or, is it possible that each individual state reached out for this deal due to private motivations we do not yet have access to?
Ultimately, these deals signal a new era of political ties between the U.S. and Africa. Never before has a third country been used in this way as a form of political currency between two countries which opens a new cache of questions on the longevity and strength of political connections based on accepting deportees. Further, these bonds with African countries with whom the U.S. does not regularly interact with, hint at future political or physical investment in Africa by the U.S. at a time when Africa is seeing an unprecedented rise in development both internally and by foreign entities such as China. While the motivations for these deals haven’t been made public, these deals are unlikely to stop which poses further threat to the human rights of deportees in the U.S.
Edited by Elizabeth Kiff
Disclaimer: This is an article written by a Staff Writer. Catalyst is a student-led platform that fosters engagement with global issues from a learning perspective. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Sonia Oulamine is a second-year student at McGill University, currently pursuing a B.A. in International Development Studies with minors in Political Science and Arabic Language. She serves as a writer for Catalyst and has a particular interest in international relations, law, and human rights.