The world is currently witnessing one of the worst forced migration crises since the end of World War II, with millions fleeing their war-torn countries and seeking refuge across international borders. Ongoing armed conflicts in nations such as Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, Myanmar, Ukraine, and others continue to produce increasing numbers of refugees at an alarming rate. The existing global system for protecting asylum seekers prioritizes state interests, coupled with a growing trend to securitize the refugee issue, particularly in Northern countries. This perspective views asylum seekers as security threats and economic burdens on host countries. Additionally, there is a rise in xenophobia, racism, and populism, leading to a less welcoming atmosphere for those refugees seeking safe havens. This backdrop has intensified the debate surrounding resettlement policies in third countries.
Resettlement Defined
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) defines “resettlement” as the policy that involves the “transfer of refugees from one asylum country to another that has agreed to accept them and grant them permanent residency.” Resettlement is one of the three durable solutions for forced displacement, alongside local integration in the first asylum country and voluntary repatriation to the refugees’ home countries. This policy relies on voluntary cooperation from states; however, the number of refugees being resettled remains low compared to the total number hosted in the first asylum countries. Currently, resettlement occupies a marginal position among the enduring alternatives available for addressing refugee issues. Estimates suggest that less than 1% of displaced persons are resettled, reflecting several obstacles, including administrative and legal challenges, as well as the need for political decisions since it depends on voluntary acceptance by the receiving country.
Diverse Experiences
A review of the positions of many countries recently, including those in the European Union, the UK, Bangladesh, and Jordan, reveals a prevailing atmosphere that is less welcoming to refugees. Many Northern and Southern countries alike wish to “offload” the burden incurred from hosting increasing flows of refugees on their territories. This is evident in several developments:
European Union Countries: In recent years, the concept of resettling refugees has gained some acceptance in select European nations. Countries such as Denmark, Italy, Germany, and Austria intend to outsource the handling of asylum applications to a third country outside the EU—significant steps to address the pressures stemming from forced migration issues. In the first half of last year, Germany alone received over two hundred thousand asylum applications, according to estimates from the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. This trend is linked to the surge in asylum applications and the burden faced by countries accepting refugees within their territories. European governments feel the need to convey political messages to their citizens, assuring them that serious measures are being taken to tackle the migration challenge. In this context, Italy’s agreement with Albania on November 6, 2023, to transfer migrants rescued at sea to Albania for their asylum applications to be processed there, can be understood as an effective method for managing the return of individuals who do not require protection and preventing their entry into the EU.
The United Kingdom: Under former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government in April 2022, the UK announced that any asylum seeker entering the UK illegally from a safe country could be sent to Rwanda. Their asylum applications would be processed in this East African nation, and if approved, they could reside there. If not, these individuals could either settle in Rwanda based on other reasons or seek asylum in a third safe country, though none would be permitted to apply for return to the UK. After the UK Parliament passed this controversial law on April 22, 2024, it was estimated that around 52,000 asylum seekers were likely subject to deportation to Rwanda. On a related note, the UK’s Home Office stated that this law would also apply to those whose asylum applications were rejected and failed to appeal the decision. However, the law encountered implementation challenges following the High Court ruling in November 2023, which deemed it unlawful based on Rwanda’s poor human rights record and its treatment of refugees, representing a violation of the right to protection from torture and inhumane treatment. Yet, the previous British government led by Rishi Sunak maintained that Rwanda is a safe country and signed a new migration agreement that guaranteed that anyone deported there would not be sent back to their country of origin. It is estimated that the UK’s asylum system costs approximately £4 billion annually, but the planned Rwanda deportation scheme also carries financial implications, as the British government committed to paying £20,000 for each person resettled, in addition to providing developmental assistance to Rwanda. In a notable shift, current Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced on July 6, 2024, that his government would not follow the previous administration’s policy of deporting asylum seekers arriving by small boats to Rwanda, thereby terminating the plan even before any flights had taken off. The current British government is focusing on security policies aimed at tightening border control and combating illegal migration.
Bangladesh: The Rohingya minority has faced extensive military repression in Myanmar, resulting in the forced displacement of over a million individuals from this community. Estimates indicate that hundreds of thousands are now living in neighboring Bangladesh, which began transferring thousands of them to a remote island in the Bay of Bengal in December 2020 despite serious reservations raised by various human rights organizations over concerns for the safety and voluntary acceptance of this action by the refugees. In a development underscoring Bangladesh’s commitment to advancing its resettlement policy, interim Prime Minister Mohammed Yunus called on September 8 for expedited plans to resettle Rohingya individuals in a third country. Amid ongoing internal conflict in Myanmar, approximately eight thousand Rohingya Muslims fled to Bangladesh in recent months, which is grappling with a severe economic and political crisis. According to the head of the International Organization for Migration, Washington has expressed its commitment to receiving thousands of Rohingya refugees under a resettlement plan, while the Bangladeshi government has announced its inability to accept more Rohingya refugees, urging India and other neighboring countries to take in larger numbers.
Jordan: Jordan is estimated to host around 1.3 million Syrians since the onset of the Syrian crisis in 2011. Amid indications that the Jordanian government is reviewing its policies regarding Syrian refugees, Minister of Interior Mazen Al-Faraya announced on July 30, 2024, that more than a million refugees remain within Jordanian territory, stating this situation cannot continue and is unsustainable, adding that 63,000 refugees have been resettled in other countries. The UNHCR Commissioner in Jordan, Dominik Bartsch, announced on December 10, 2023, plans to resettle 6,000 refugees in Jordan to a third country over the previous year, noting that this figure remains “a drop in the ocean” compared to the total number of refugees residing in Jordan.
Pressing Issues
The preceding examples illustrate a prevailing atmosphere of less welcome for refugees in many nations, characterized by restrictive policies aimed at reducing the inflow of asylum seekers. This climate is tied to several factors, including the ongoing forced migration crisis that has resulted in a massive surge in asylum applications, the economic burden placed on host countries, and the challenges of cultural and social integration for large numbers of individuals, most of whom come from the Global South. Many governments find themselves compelled to adopt stringent policies against this issue, as the politicization of immigration remains a prevalent theme in both Northern and Southern countries.
In this context, several challenges arise regarding asylum and resettlement. On one hand, there is the issue of voluntary acceptance of asylum seekers in a third country; estimates on the resettlement of the Rohingya, for example, vary regarding whether this policy reflects the genuine will of those being resettled or merely acts as a form of deportation. On another hand, the challenge of ensuring humane treatment and providing a safe haven in the third asylum country emerges, a concern echoed in the British plans to deport refugees to Rwanda. Additionally, the capacity of countries worldwide to host significant numbers of refugees raises questions; wealthy nations wish, at the very least, to curb the pull factors that make them primary destinations for forced migration flows, amid a political backdrop marked by the rise of far-right parties, populism, and anti-foreign sentiment. Conversely, poorer countries struggle to support large populations with their current resources without overwhelming essential services and exacerbating inflation, thus necessitating substantial financial aid from the Global North to fulfill their responsibilities within the global asylum system.
