Immigration as a threat to the British state A policy analysis of the United Kingdom and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership in the broader context of the UK’s stricter immigration policy Author: Tova Tabacsko Bachelor thesis in Global Studies Spring term 2023 Supervisor: Kilian Spandler The School of Global Studies Abstract This dissertation analyses the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership in the broader context of the UK’s stricter migration policy. The policy allows the UK to relocate migrants to Rwanda for processing, asylum, and resettlement. Those successful in claiming asylum will remain in Rwanda and will not be able to re-enter the UK. This study aims to obtain an understanding of why the British Government is proceeding with the policy despite criticism from various actors in the international arena, claiming that the policy is inhumane and a violation of the human rights of refugees and asylum-seekers. A discourse and document analysis of documents from the British Government, UNHCR, and online articles have been adopted to investigate the research questions of this case study. Moreover, after analysing the empirical material in-depth using the securitisation theory, I indicate that the main motive of the policy is unwanted immigration. In addition, using the postcolonial theory and its core concepts, I claim that the policy has tendencies of racism, concluding that the policy is biased in terms of race. Finally, using the concept of externalisation to analyse the documents, I suggest that externalisation is used as a political tool to strengthen the British borders. The results indicate that the arrangement is the British Government’s latest strategy to restrict unwanted immigration to the UK. Keywords: Policy, United Kingdom, Immigration, Securitisation, Postcolonialism, Identity, Race, Externalisation, Discourse Language: English Word count: 13 626 1 Acknowledgement First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Kilian Spandler for taking the extra time to supervise me during the summer of 2023 due to my extended internship at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs this spring. A task you did not have to take on, except you did – with ease and excitement – and for that I am truly grateful. Secondly, I would like to express my profound gratitude towards my colleagues at my previous internship – the Embassy of Sweden in Kigali – for addressing this topic and providing me with valuable connections in the field. Thirdly, thanks to the representative of UNHCR Rwanda, the representative of BHC Rwanda, and Phil Clark Professor of International Politics at SOAS University of London – this dissertation would not have been the same without your enriched insights, competence, and expertise in the topic. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family for their encouragement throughout my studies at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Thank you! Tova Tabacsko Gothenburg, 16 August 2023 2 List of Abbreviations AU Africa Union BHC British High Commission ECHR European Court of Human Rights EU European Union HRW Human Rights Watch IR International Relations MEDP Migration and Economic Development Partnership MoU Memorandum of Understanding MP Member of Parliament NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NHS National Health Service NPI New Plan for Immigration UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees WPR What is the problem represented to be? 3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Research problem ............................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Aim and research questions .............................................................................................. 9 1.3 Delimitations .................................................................................................................. 10 1.4 Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 10 2. Literature review .................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 British migration policy.................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Migration as a security issue .......................................................................................... 14 3. Theoretical framework ......................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Securitisation theory ....................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Postcolonial theory ......................................................................................................... 16 3.3.1 Othering ................................................................................................................... 18 3.3.2 Identity..................................................................................................................... 18 3.3.3 Race ......................................................................................................................... 19 3.3 Externalisation ................................................................................................................ 20 4. Research method .................................................................................................................. 21 4.1 Research design .............................................................................................................. 22 4.2 Research material ........................................................................................................... 23 4.3 Policy analysis ................................................................................................................ 24 4.3.1 Interpretive policy analysis ..................................................................................... 24 4.3.2 Mainstream policy analysis ..................................................................................... 27 5. Result and analysis ............................................................................................................... 28 5.1 Immigration as a threat to the British state..................................................................... 28 5.2 Identity politics and political polarisation ...................................................................... 32 5.3 Externalisation and its colonial traits ............................................................................. 37 4 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 39 7. References ............................................................................................................................ 42 List of Figures Figure 1. How the process works ............................................................................................... 9 Figure 2. The analytical questions from the WPR approach .................................................... 26 5 1. Introduction 1.1 Research problem On 14 April 2022, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda agreed on a Migration and Economic Development Partnership (UK Parliament, 2023). The bilateral agreement, initiated by the British Government, allows the UK to relocate people whom the state identifies as being illegal immigrants or asylum-seekers to Rwanda for processing, asylum, and resettlement. People who are successful in claiming asylum will remain in Rwanda and will not be permitted to re-enter the UK, however, those that are not granted asylum in Rwanda will return to their country of origin. Since 1 January 2022, anyone who enters the UK illegally may be relocated to Rwanda (BBC, 2023). The initially scheduled flight on 14 June 2022 was stopped due to an ECHR injunction, which received criticism from the Government (ECHR, 2022). To date, nobody has yet been removed under the arrangement since the policy was announced due to ongoing legal challenges, although the High Court ruled on the overall lawfulness of the policy on 19 December 2022 (UK Parliament, 2022h). However, on 29 June 2023, the court ruled the policy unlawful with the argument that Rwanda is not a safe country to send refugees and asylum- seekers to. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that the Government will seek a Supreme Court appeal and is confident that the policy can overcome its legal challenges (Taylor & Quinn, 2023). Moreover, the policy was introduced by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, leader of the Conservative Party. In conjunction with the announcement of the policy, Johnson stated the following: ‘Anyone entering the UK illegally – as well as those who have arrived illegally since January 1st – may now be relocated to Rwanda’ (UK Parliament, 2022e). The arrangement has been signed by the former UK Home Secretary Priti Patel and Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Vincent Biruta. The states entered a Memorandum of Understanding aimed at establishing an asylum partnership arrangement to enhance shared international obligations on the protection of refugees and migrants (UK Parliament, 2023). It is a five-year asylum partnership arrangement, and as part of the agreement the UK has paid the Rwandan Government 140 million pounds sterling to enhance the development in Rwanda. The UK has not implemented any guidelines on how the Rwandan Government should use the money (BBC, 2023). 6 The policy is intended to support the New Plan for Immigration Programme. The main aim of the programme is to break the business model of the criminal smuggling gangs and to protect the lives of those they endanger by deterring illegal entry into the UK. People take appalling risks to illegally enter the UK, and often embark on dangerous journeys in the process, although they could obtain international protection in states that they have transited through. This includes crossing the English Channel in small boats, hiding under or in trucks or in containers (UK Parliament, 2022d). In 2023, Home Secretary Suella Braverman stated the following: ‘Do not hand over your life savings, do not get into that flimsy dinghy, do not risk your life, because you will not be entitled to a life in the UK’ (Howard, 2023). In 2018, 300 people crossed the English Channel on small boats to arrive in the UK. In 2021, approximately 28,000 people made the crossing, and at least 44 disappeared, presumed drowned. In 2022, more than 45,7000 people crossed the English Channel, which is the highest figure since records began, and an increase of 507 per cent in comparison to 2018 (The Economist, 2022). The Brexit campaign to leave the European Union in 2016 advocated for an end to uncontrolled immigration, however, successive governments have yet not succeeded in preventing the influx of illegal arrivals. In 2022, Sunak candidate for the post of Prime Minister and made five vows, one of which was to stop boats of asylum-seekers from crossing the English Channel (Howard, 2023). Since the policy was announced on 14 April 2022, the number of crossings has not been reduced. However, this does not necessarily imply that the policy is ineffective due to most immigrants being unaware of the arrangement (Phil Clark, personal communication, 14 June 2022). The policy is described to be extremely controversial by the international community including religious and human rights organisations, the Church of England and opposition MPs, British lawmakers on both sides of the House of Commons, and numerous Rwandan opposition politicians. Several human rights organisations criticise the policy and argue that it violates basic human rights (Freeman, 2011). Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper described the policy as ‘unworkable, extortionate and deeply damaging’ (Russell & Andersson, 2022). In addition, UNHCR has strongly objected to and raised concerns against the policy, urging the UK to abstain from relocating asylum-seekers and refugees to Rwanda for asylum 7 processing (UNHCR Rwanda, personal communication, 19 May 2022). This sort of arrangement simply shifts responsibility, avoids international commitments, and is not compatible with the 1951 Refugee Convention. These externalisation agreements will only amplify risks and cause refugees to seek alternative routes (UNHCR, 2022c). In 2023, HRW’s executive director Tirana Hassan stated the following: ‘It’s cheap politics, divisive, and completely contrary to human rights’ (Borger, 2023). The UK is not the first country to send asylum-seekers to a third country. Britain’s arrangement to shift asylum-seekers to Rwanda is part of a larger trend (The Economist, 2022). Australia and Israel have previously implemented similar policies for resettlement in third countries, where it is claimed that Australia’s migration policy is used as a model by the UK (Phil Clark, personal communication, 14 June 2022). As part of a wider initiative to prevent refugees from crossing the Mediterranean, the EU indirectly supports offshore asylum programmes. Additionally, Denmark enacted a law in 2021 that permits the transfer of refugees to asylum centres in a third country for the processing of their claims (Bhalla & Taylor, 2023). The AU stated that ‘such attempts to stem out-migration from Africa to Europe is xenophobic and completely unacceptable’ (Fleming, 2022). According to HRW, it could be a significant setback for human rights worldwide if the policy is ruled lawful. The policy will send a controversial message across the world in terms of justifying these sorts of actions. In addition, there is a risk of a chain reaction, whereby other Western states implement similar policies, potentially inflicting additional setbacks on existing refugee protections (Borger, 2023). Great Britain is one of several states that have expressed scepticism and hesitation towards immigration and is the first country in Europe to independently introduce this sort of policy (Borger, 2023). Immigrants are perceived as a ‘threat’ to many far-right states in Europe including the UK. Since Brexit, the UK is not obligated to proceed with the common EU migration policy. However, the migration policy still needs to be under the UN Refugee Convention and international law, whereby the state is obligated to ensure access to asylum for those seeking protection. UNHCR and several human rights organisations criticise the policy for being incompatible with international refugee law. The Government is proceeding with the policy despite criticism from various actors in the international arena (UNHCR Rwanda, personal communication, 19 May 2022). 8 Figure 1. How the process works (UK Parliament, 2022a). 1.2 Aim and research questions This dissertation aims to obtain an understanding of why the British Government is proceeding with the United Kingdom and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership despite criticism from various national and international actors. The purpose is to further examine how the policy can be understood in the broader context of the UK’s stricter migration policy. This study provides case-based empirical evidence on how securitisation and identity politics are interlinked with the externalisation of migration governance. Therefore, this dissertation contributes to research within the field of migration and security. The study aims to answer the following research questions: • How can the United Kingdom and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership be understood in the context of the UK’s stricter immigration policy? o How is the United Kingdom and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership motivated by the British Government? 9 o What underlying identity structures can be identified in the policies and statements of the British Government? o How does the United Kingdom and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership affect the governance of the UK’s borders? 1.3 Delimitations The time limit for the collection of research material and analysis is set from 14 April 2022, when the United Kingdom officially announced the United Kingdom and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, until the High Court ruled the policy as lawful on 19 December 2022 (Politico, 2022). Although the policy is still being debated in Parliament, I argue that the selected period is significant for investigation since it can be perceived as a crucial turning point in British migration policy (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:288-289). This study focuses on the British perspective and how the policy is used as a political tool to further restrict British migration policy. Although it is significant to study the humanitarian aspect of the policy since it is interfering with the human rights of refugees and asylum-seekers, this dissertation explores the underlying factors of why the policy was constructed in the first place (UNHCR, 2022a). Consequently, the humanitarian aspect will not be considered. However, this aspect should be illuminated since the policy has received severe criticism for being inhumane and a violation of basic human rights. It is vital to acknowledge that this aspect of the policy needs to be examined in future research, and whether this sort of policy can be justified from a legal aspect of human rights. On the other hand, I argue the importance of investigating why the policy was created and is still proceeding despite criticism, and how it can be interconnected to the UK’s stricter migration policy (Borger, 2023). 1.4 Definitions The previous research and empirical material used for this study is related to migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers. These terms will be defined to avoid misunderstandings and to acknowledge their legal definitions. The terms ‘migrant’, ‘refugee’ and ‘asylum-seeker’ are used to describe people who are on the move, who have left their native countries and crossed international borders. Migrants and refugees are often used interchangeably, however, there is an evident legal distinction between migrants and refugees (Amnesty, n.d). Contrary to 10 migrants, refugees are protected under international law. The universal definition of refugees according to the 1951 Refugee Convention: ‘Owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it’ (UNHCR, 2023b). Contrary to refugees, there is no legal definition of migrants on the international level. However, UNHCR following the Refugee Convention defines migrants as the following: ‘A migrant refers to any person who moves away from their usual place of residence, whether internally or across a border, and regardless of whether the movement is 'forced' or voluntary’ (UNHCR, 2023a). Moreover, there is a significant distinction between refugees and asylum-seekers. The universal definition of asylum-seekers according to UNHCR: ‘An asylum-seeker is a person who has left his/her country of origin and formally applied for asylum in another country but whose claim has not yet been concluded’ (UNHCR, n.d.). The evident distinction between refugees and asylum-seekers is that an asylum-seeker is someone who has not obtained legal recognition as a refugee and is waiting for a reply to their asylum application. In other words, asylum-seekers are seeking international protection. Everyone has the right to seek asylum, however, the national asylum systems determine who will be granted asylum (Amnesty, n.d). 11 2. Literature review In this section, previous research in the field of migration and security is presented to provide an understanding of the topic. It is vital to acknowledge previous research in these fields to gather relevant information, fill knowledge gaps in existing research and therefore avoid duplication of research. Previous research demonstrates that the identity of Englishness was a key factor for Brexit and the UK’s stricter migration policy. Additionally, research indicates that restrictive migration can be explained by security issues. Therefore, I have chosen to examine research in the field of migration and security. Moreover, this study contributes to research through case-based empirical evidence on how securitisation and identity politics are interlinked with the externalisation of migration governance. 2.1 British migration policy In the Oxford Handbook of Migration, Menjívar, Ruiz, and Ness advocate that migration was a central topic in the Leave campaign and Brexit. The Conservative Party was in opposition to EU law and European human rights law, giving rights to foreigners. As a result, the party created the slogan ‘taking back control’ (Menjívar et al., 2019). The free movement within the EU became the key issue surrounding Brexit. The Leave campaigners underlined the incapacity of the EU to handle the refugee crisis and raised the spectre of Türkiye joining the EU and therefore having the right to free movement. For decades, several European states including the UK had open-door policies and generous benefits towards refugees and asylum-seekers. This attracted refugees and asylum-seekers, fleeing conflict, war, violence or persecution (Menjívar et al., 2019). Consequently, native English people became more aware of their own identity of Englishness and became anti-immigrant, blaming immigrants for numerous problems. Squire stresses that economic, social, and political conditions in the UK have been substantial in framing immigrants as threats (Squire, 2015). The authors found that the increase in Englishness resulted in anti-immigration in Britain, portraying immigrants as outsiders, the ‘villains’ and a threat to internal security, consequently paving the way for The Leave campaign and Brexit (Menjívar et al., 2019). In the International Handbook of Migration Studies, Song agrees to some extent with Menjívar et al in the sense that anti-immigration propaganda was a central part of the Leave campaign due to the conceptual link between migration and race. Contrary to Menjívar et al, Song stresses that the link between migration and race shapes a larger part of the anti-immigration movement 12 than the previously mentioned scholars were able to explain (Song, 2013). Furthermore, Song implies that the terms migration and race are often mutually constitutive. The fusion of these terms stems from historical occurrences wherein migration to Western societies has predominately entailed the migration of non-white people from postcolonial societies (Song, 2013:169-179). In addition, several analysts have associated the term migration with the dynamics of race, marginalised status, and the representation of the ‘other’. Song claims that identity politics during the Leave campaign was a central part of Brexit and the stricter migration policy that followed. The author found that the key theme in these debates is that immigration is a danger to society, using discourse to portray migration as a threat to the state (Song, 2013:169-179). Moreover, research by UCL Institute of Education and Stockholm University supports Song’s argument of identity being a crucial factor of the Leave campaign and stresses that Brexit was not driven by social class, it was indeed driven by cultural values and national identity (UCL, 2021). The authors found that individuals professing a strong British identity tend to be in favour of the Leave. However, when British identity is contrasted with national identities, for instance Welsh and Scottish, individuals who exclusively identify as British tend to be less supportive of the Leave compared to those who identify solely as English or British and English. Furthermore, individuals with a diverse cultural background tend to be in favour of the Remain (UCL, 2021). The lead author of the research Professor Tak Wing Chan stated the following: ‘There is a narrative that people in relative poverty voted for Brexit as a revolt and that social class predicts leave support. But Leave-support goes far beyond these groups. Indeed, quite a lot of people in comfortable circumstances or living in leafy neighborhoods support Leave. Many of them do so because they subscribe to a more nationalistic view of Britain's place in Europe’ (UCL, 2021). On the contrary, scholars Bachmann and Sidaway advocate that socio-economic inequalities were a central part of the Leave campaign, beyond the factors of right-populism, racism, and nationalism (Bachmann & Sidaway, 2016). The authors have analysed that the Leave campaign exploited the challenging socio-economic situation faced by the lower classes in Britain. They projected the discontent with the British elites, which was growing simultaneously with inequality in the country, onto the EU. Risen inequality and socio-economic uncertainty 13 resulting in nation-scale reactions is an old theme as Habermas points out ‘in an insecure daily life a national and cultural sense of belonging are indeed stabilising elements’ (Bachmann & Sidaway, 2016). 2.2 Migration as a security issue Migration is a global phenomenon, and the field has been thoroughly studied for decades. Since the terror attack on 11 September 2001, there has been a paradigm shift in the global security agenda, catapulting terrorism to the top of the agenda and emphasising the control of migration as a security priority (Huysmans, 2006). Western governments argued that security should include combating non-military threats since non-state actors carried out these attacks. Migration is included among the non-military threats to state security (Lazaridis & Wadia, 2015:1). One of the most influential researchers in the field of migration is Jef Huysmans. In the article ‘The European Union and the Securitization of Migration’ Huysmans argues that migration in the last decades has developed into a security issue in Western Europe (Huysmans, 2000:751). Huysmans elaborates on how immigrants and asylum-seekers are portrayed as a threat to the preservation of national identity and welfare provisions, whereby Western Europe has the concept of cultural homogeneity as a stabilising factor. Huysmans further argues that this type of policy functions as a tool to protect the state and its society including the domestic market from the rise in the influx of immigrants and asylum-seekers (Huysmans, 2000:751). Huysmans concludes that immigrants and asylum-seekers are a source of danger, thereby being presented as a security issue for the nation-state. This portrayal arises from the perception that these individuals jeopardise societal stability, identity, and cultural cohesion (Huysmans, 2000:751). To retrace, in the book ‘The Securitisation of Migration in the EU’ Lazaridis and Wadia claim that Western Europe has incorporated security issues into their migration policies and the security discourse, whereby immigrants are subject to societal instability. Lazaridis and Wadia therefore agree with Huysmans's conclusion (Lazaridis & Wadia, 2015:2). On the contrary, in the article ‘People as security risks: The framing of migration in the UK security-development nexus’ the author argues that in the UK development policy, the migration of people is regarded as a potential threat to the national security of Great Britain. The author found that the nation-state and its security are threatened by immigrants, and thus not identity 14 and cultural homogeneity. The conclusion partly differentiates from Huysmans as well as Lazaridis and Wadia (McConnon, 2020). 3. Theoretical framework In this chapter, the theoretical framework that is used to investigate the research questions is presented. The first sub-question is connected with the securitisation theory, the second sub- question is linked to postcolonialism and the concepts of othering, identity, and race. Lastly, the third sub-question is interconnected with externalisation. The selected theories and concepts are based on the aim and research questions of the study as well as previous research. These theories and concepts are adopted in the theoretical framework to investigate the research questions. 3.1 Securitisation theory In 1998, the Copenhagen school and its core scholars Buzan, de Wilde, and Wæver published the Security: A New Framework for Analysis article. Since the publication of the article, securitisation has become one of the dominant approaches to security (Balzacq, 2011). A security issue can be framed as a threat to the survival of the state and its components: society, territory, and government. According to Buzan et al, security threats are socially constructed by the securitising actor through a discourse process. In other words, there are no natural security threats (Von Rosen, 2019). Security threats should therefore not only be viewed as military concerns between states as argued by traditional scholars in security studies, instead, the perspective should broaden and adapt to globalisation, whereby immigration can be presented as an existential threat to a referent object, for instance the society or state (Buzan, 1991:14). The securitisation theory is a constructive approach and focuses on the construction of security threats through language. The central concept in the securitisation theory is the speech act, which consists of rhetorical criteria that actors use to securitise an issue. However, the securitising actor can only securitise a threat if the public accepts and legitimise it. The securitisation process is only successful if the securitisation actor convinces the public of the urgency of an existential threat, hence making it possible for the actor to justify the extraordinary measures and therefore break the normal political rules of the game (Buzan et al., 1998:23-25). 15 Securitisation can be seen as an extreme version of politicisation, whereby an issue comes to be either politicised or placed above politics. Security is thus taking politics beyond the established rules of the game (Shani, 2019:539). In theory, the Copenhagen School’s scholars argue that there is a spectrum ranging from nonpoliticised (meaning the issue is not a concern for either the state or public debates), through politicised (meaning it is a concern for the public debate hence a concern for the state and its government) to securitised (meaning that the issue is seen as an existential threat, and the state is therefore required to put in emergency measures). In other words, any issue can first be established as nonpoliticised, and in an instance be presented as politicised and vice versa (Buzan et al., 1998:23-24). In conclusion, the securitisation process includes three components to become successful: ‘(i) existential threats (ii) emergency action, and (iii) effects on interunit relations by breaking free rules’ (Buzan et al., 1998:26). Moreover, the securitisation theory allows in-depth analysis of the power relations within politics through the study of discourse and political constellations. The theoretical framework provides analytical tools for explaining how political actors construct security threats through discourse, and how discourses of security gain hegemony with other discourses (Nyman, 2018:100-112). 3.2 Postcolonial theory Postcolonial IR theory emerged during the 1980s and is primarily used as a tool to understand what has made the world hierarchical, and how ideology and practices are embedded in the structures of world politics. Postcolonialism points out how several contemporary institutions and practices of world politics are in present-day affected by colonial history (Biswas, 2021:221-224). Colonialism can in broad terms be defined as Western states' exploitation, domination and conquest of non-Western states and people. Therefore, postcolonialism is a vital approach in the discipline since it enriches the understanding of how the world is constructed and hence points out racial justice and inequality (Biswas, 2021:221-224). Postcolonialism is challenging mainstream IR theory by highlighting and questioning the relationship between power and knowledge and is further promoting values of peace, pluralism, and justice in societies (Acharya & Buzan, 2019:243). Postcolonialism is best understood by being a critical theory, hence being completely contrary to mainstream IR theories. The theory is systematically criticising universalism, which constitutes a projection of Western values, 16 cultures, languages, and ideas to the global south. Furthermore, postcolonial theory underlines the importance of identity and culture in reclaiming the voices of the colonised in opposition to the dominant Western world. It further highlights the ongoing dominance of the Western world in contemporary practices and discourses (Acharya & Buzan, 2019:243). Robert Young defines postcolonialism as the following: ‘The postcolonial does not privilege the colonial. It is concerned with colonial history only to the extent that history has determined the configurations and power structures of the present’ (Young, 2001:4). However, there is a fundamental issue with the term ‘postcolonial’ regarding whether post in the concept signifies after, in that case meaning colonialism as solely being part of the past. It is rather the contrary, the theory describes colonialism in the term ‘postcolonial’ as being constantly present in our societies, in which it is inscribed into the structure of world politics and practices (Manzo, 2019:312). Theorists of the postcolonial theory argue that ‘postcolonial’ cannot and should not be a synonym for ‘European decolonisation’ since Western forces are still present and manifested in the contemporary world and are therefore not part of the past. Patterns of continuity of Western Europe being superior indicate how international power relations have moved beyond colonialism into the contemporary world (Manzo, 2019:312). Further, Rita Abrahamsen defines postcolonialism as the following: ‘Colonialism, as conventionally defined in terms of formal settlement and control of other people’s land and goods, is in the main over, but mainly of its structures and relations of power are still in place’ (Abrahamsen, 2003:195). Moreover, Postcolonial theory is mainly addressing current issues and themes and is therefore not only focusing on colonial history. Slavery in Africa was a significant part of colonialism, however, modern slavery is manifested in the contemporary world. There are many examples of modern slavery – trafficking of children from countries such as Mali forcing them to work on plantations in different parts of western Africa. Thus, colonialism does not only belong in the past but is systematically present and manifested in the contemporary world (Manzo, 2019:312). 17 3.3.1 Othering Postcolonial theory addresses the core concept of ‘Orientalism’ by Edward Said who is considered to be the founder of postcolonial studies (Biswas, 2021:223). In the groundbreaking critical work on Orientalism (1978) Said discusses how the underlying structures of knowledge, power, imperialism, hegemony, and culture have been historically embedded in world politics and are part of a colonial discourse (Burney, 2012). The colonial discourse presents the social construction of the ‘Orient’ as the strange – the East and ‘them’, and the ‘Occident’ as the familiar – the West and ‘us’, mainly referred to France and Britain due to their historically colonial emprise, in which the Occident is superior to the Orient (Said, 2000:47-54). Politically, historically, and culturally, the West and East have been defined as binary opposition. The distinct dichotomy of the Orient and Occident is a social construction made by the West through power and knowledge (Burney, 2012:23). Said stated the following of Orientalism as a practice: ‘Systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage - and even produce - the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the post Enlightenment period’ (Burney, 2012:23). The statement by Said indicates that Orientalism is a method in which the Orient and Occident is a social construction shaped by the West to enforce political and economic control through the structures of knowledge and power, including cultural control through literature, film, and art (Burney, 2012:23). In addition, a central theme in Orientalism is the building up of Eurocentric. Eurocentrism is the tendency to highlight the experience of the West in explanations and analysis of global events. As a result, the experience in the West is superior to that in the East, making no room for pluralism (Biswas, 2021:377). In the contemporary world, the hegemony discourse is characterised by Eurocentrism and is therefore resulting in a more distinct dichotomy of the Orient and Occident (Said, 2000:47-54). 3.3.2 Identity There are several different ways of thinking about identity such as race, ethnicity, nation, gender, and class. In this study, the identity of race is highlighted since previous research indicates that British migration policy is characterised by issues of identity and in particular 18 race. How identity is perceived is constantly changing. For instance, until recently male and female identity used to be thought of as binary and determined by biology, however, in present- day gender is seen as a social construction (Wibben & Rutazibwa, 2019:90). Identity has been discussed for centuries, and during the late sixteenth century, Europeans initiated discussions in an attempt to understand the origin of darker-skinned peoples. From the onset, the majority of these accounts established a hierarchical distinction between various groups of people, in terms of superior and inferior. Scholars in postcolonialism argue that identity is socially constructed, compared to earlier when identity was conceptualised as being inherently linked to nature. This implies that identity is not given by nature, it is constructed in a process of political, social, and cultural struggles (Wibben & Rutazibwa, 2019:90-91). Moreover, there are different approaches to identity – static and dynamic. When it comes to the static, fixed, approach, it is believed that individuals first ‘exist’, and then choose or adopt an identity. The fixed approach observes what we ‘actually’ are. Consequently, this provides broad and stereotypical features. Although it is claimed to be universal, it is rather specific and only in accordance with a few people’s experiences. The approach has been criticised as being conservative and can only observe the current status quo. Regarding the dynamic, fluid, approach, it is assumed that individuals do not ‘exist’ first, it is instead argued that the emergence of ourselves as subjects already carries with it an identity or identities. It is further argued that identity is shaped and altered by structures in society, which explains that identity is constantly changing (Wibben & Rutazibwa, 2019:91-95). 3.3.3 Race The work on race by Charles Darwin during the nineteenth century provided scientific support to the idea that different kinds of human races could be differentiated. In the contemporary world, raciology-produced material has been used to justify discriminatory policies (Wibben & Rutazibwa, 2019:90-91). IR scholars Michael Omi and Howard Winant define race as: ‘A concept that signifies and symbolizes socio-political conflicts and interests in reference to different types of human bodies. Although the concept of race appeals to biologically based human characteristic (so-called phenotypes, selection of these particular human features for the purpose of racial signification is always and necessarily a social and historical process’ (Anievas et al., 2015:46). 19 The concept of race is a complex of social meaning continually reconstructed through processes where the selection of biologically rooted human traits is profoundly shaped by social and historical factors. Problematically, this definition relies on the idea that there truly exist racial distinctions among various types of bodies (Anievas et al., 2015:46). The construction of race involves the exercise of power. This power is not solely controlled by the state; race is both embedded within and shaped by various state and societal practices. In essence, race extends beyond presumed biological distinctions or institutional categories. Instead, it is included in ideas and ideologies regarding how society should function and uphold social structure, which is brought to life through a multitude of diverse power dynamics and practices. The concept of race has been used and misused within and among modern Western societies for centuries (Anievas et al., 2015:46). In addition, racism is a structure of power that is tied to specific historical contexts within the modern global framework, creating human hierarchies and reinforcing the dominance of White supremacy. This has significant implications in terms of both material effects and knowledge creation in the present, including the emergence and normalisation of White-racialised subject positions in the hegemony discourse (Sabaratnam, 2020). 3.3 Externalisation The externalisation of migration controls is a migration management strategy, whereby Western states introduce policies intending to prevent refugees and asylum-seekers from entering territories or the legal jurisdictions of destination countries (Frelick, Kysel, & Podkul, 2016:193). These policies are either unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral state engagement, including the enlistment of private actors. This sort of migration management strategy has had a rise in the global north since it legally enables states to deter the arrival of individuals who lack permission to enter their destination country (Crisp, 2020). Externalisation is the outcome of the determination by states to avoid the obligations to the 1952 UN Refugee Convention, which has previously been ratified by the Western states. Even though externalisation is less visible than physical barriers, it restricts and controls mobility between nation-states' borders (Frelick, Kysel, & Podkul, 2016). Additionally, externalisation occurs through various practices. For example, visa controls, sanctions on transport companies, information campaigns in the country of origin with the aim 20 to deter refugee and asylum-seekers from the global south from attempting the journey to the global north, and lastly through agreements with third countries. Although the term externalisation may be relatively new, the strategy has been in practice since the 1980s. For instance, in the 1990s, the Australian Government implemented the ‘Pacific Solution’. This involved sending asylum-seekers to detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru (Crisp, 2020). During the last decade, migration policy has become an increasingly politicised issue, and instead of portraying externalisation as a way to manage migration controls, it is being presented as a security necessity and a life-saving humanitarian action. However, policies designed to exclude asylum-seekers are leading to human rights violations and undermining the international refugee regime (Frelick, Kysel, & Podkul, 2016). According to legal scholar Kalpouzos, the aspiration to evade migration and legal accountability has ‘led to an increasingly sophisticated set of practices the aim of which is to avoid, outsource, and distance responsibility, accountability, and liability’ (Kalpouzos, 2020). Other legal scholars Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan stress that deterring asylum-seekers ‘is not sustainable in the long term, or even perhaps in the medium term’ due to lack of effectiveness, legal challenges, and increasing financial costs. Externalisation does not necessarily end illegal migration, it rather redirects it to alternative routes, which tend to be more dangerous pathways (FitzGerald, 2019). 4. Research method In this chapter, the dissertation’s analytical method and the selection of material for the analytical section are presented and motivated. The dissertation is based on policy analysis as the overarching method, with a focus on interpretive and mainstream policy analysis as the orientation of the method. Furthermore, discourse and document analysis are used as analytical methods. The methods contain analytical tools that will be used in the analysis to operationalise the research questions. The decision on the empirical material and analytical method is solely based on the dissertation’s purpose and research questions (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:290). At first, this study intended to conduct interviews with organisations such as UNHCR and government officials that have connections with the policy. Given the sensitivity of the topic, it would not have been possible to conduct in-depth interviews with UNHCR, let alone with BHC 21 Rwanda, or government officials in London. However, a government official at BHC Rwanda with whom I was in contact recommended a few documents by the British Government. Consequently, I chose to analyse documents by using discourse and document analysis as analytical methods to answer the research questions (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017). 4.1 Research design The dissertation’s method is based on a qualitative research strategy. According to Bryman, a qualitative research strategy is preferable when researchers want to obtain an understanding of how individuals perceive and interpret social reality (Bryman, 2016:61). This dissertation has adopted a case study approach as part of its research design. A case study design is suitable to use when the particular case constitutes what one aims to illuminate. It is explained that the approach is useful for highlighting the unique elements of a case (Bryman, 2016:97-98). The case concerns a certain event that has occurred, and in this study, it is the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership. This case can be seen as a ‘unique’ or an ‘extreme’ case as Great Britain is the first state in Europe to announce a policy of having its asylum process in a third country. This allows a unique opportunity to study anti-immigration and whether the policy is part of a bigger phenomenon of migration security and resistance towards refugees and asylum-seekers (Bryman, 2016:99). Moreover, Bryman stresses that case studies have delimitations when it comes to generalisability. However, it would be possible to generalise the result of the analysis on other migration policies to a certain extent since there are similar trends of anti-immigration in Western states as aforementioned, hence ensuring reliability (Bryman, 2016:101). Moreover, this study is based on a deductive approach. According to Bryman, a deductive approach is when one first accounts for a theory or theories to then reach an observation or result. In this case, I have outlined theories earlier regarding the dissertation’s purpose and research questions to be able to produce and analyse the result (Bryman, 2016:47-49). Furthermore, the empirical material is analysed through a hermeneutic method. Hermeneutics is the process of analysing and interpreting written text and imagery. It aims to understand both the text itself and the underlying intentions of its creator. The hermeneutic method was adopted based on the study’s aim and research questions (Danermark, Ekström & Karlsson, 2018, s. 243-244). 22 4.2 Research material The empirical data of the case study is based on a purposive selection of official documents from British Government authorities, debates from the UK Parliament, and statements given by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as well as other government officials. Documents and press releases from UNHCR have additionally been selected as empirical material. Lastly, a few selected online articles are included in the material to achieve maximum saturation. Various sorts of empirical materials have been selected to add several perspectives to the analysis. Adopting a purposive selection involves selecting material based on the research aim, and therefore being able to answer the research question (Bryman, 2016:498). Official documents, debates, and statements from Government authorities and officials are selected since they hold first-hand information about the policy. Documents and press releases from UNHCR and online articles have been chosen since they present a critical view of the policy and the British migration policy at large. Further, the official documents from British Government authorities including statements given by the current and former Prime Minister as well as government officials are directed to both a domestic and foreign audience. Through these statements, the UK Government presents its interest in front of and in relation to its national and international audience, with the aim to justify the policy despite criticism from various actors (Borger, 2023). The empirical data for the case study will be based on a total of six official documents from government authorities, five debates from the UK Parliament, three official documents from UNHCR, and two online articles. To select these documents, I entered the search term ‘UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership’ as well as ‘Rwanda asylum plan’ – a term used by the media which is equivalent to the MEDP – on the websites of the online articles, UNHCR and the British Government. Accordingly, I selected documents that contained relevant information concerning the research questions. Moreover, it is essential to adopt a critical approach when analysing the empirical material, in particular online articles as being a secondary source (Bryman, 2016:668). However, official documents from the British Government fulfil authenticity because the documents are produced by a primary source. The authenticity of this study can be affected if information about the authors is omitted, and platforms claiming to be independent but are impartial. Taking this into account, I have selected well-established platforms where articles contain similar descriptions and statements that strengthen their authenticity. In addition, it is necessary to be critical when 23 it comes to the official documents by British government authorities regarding their political agenda. In conjunction with this, UNHCR and the articles have their own agenda including gaining profit, and in UNHCR’s case, the organisation cannot be too critical of the Western states and their migration policies since these states are their main funders. These sorts of documents are of interest precisely because of the biases they exhibit (Bryman, 2016:665). Throughout the study, it is essential to acknowledge and be aware of my role as a researcher as my interpretations of observations from the documents are based on my own perceptions, knowledge, experiences, and biases. This could impact the study’s ability to be replicated and receive the same result, hence affecting the validity of the study. Furthermore, quotations from the documents have a prominent role in the analysis and are cited exactly to ensure transparency (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:293). 4.3 Policy analysis Policy analysis is used as the predominant method for this dissertation, whereby mainstream and interpretive policy analysis is used as the orientation of the method. Policy analysis is a research method that provides a way of understanding the reasons behind governmental policy enactment and its resultant impacts (Browne et al., 2019:1032). Suggesting it is a suitable method to answer the research questions of this study. 4.3.1 Interpretive policy analysis Interpretive policy analysis is used as the first orientation of the method. Contrary to mainstream policy, interpretive policy analysis underlines the significance of social construction, emphasising that language and discourse have a crucial role in shaping the formation of social reality (Brown et al., 2019:1035). Interpretive policy analysis is adopted to answer the first and second sub-question, by using discourse analysis as the analytical technique. A discourse analysis of documents of the British Government, UNHCR, and online articles is used as a method of data analysis to answer the first and second sub-questions of this study. The research questions are in accordance with discourse analysis since the aim of the study is to examine how different versions of reality are created or achieved by using language. Therefore, discourse analysis is a suitable method for data analysis in this study. To answer the research question, two approaches of discourse analysis will be combined: ‘What is the problem 24 represented to be?´ approach by Bacchi as well as Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:260-288). To conduct a discourse analysis, it is vital to define the concept of ‘discourse’. Discourse analysis is inspired by the philosopher Michel Foucault’s view of discourse as ‘practices that systematically form the objects of which we speak’ (Foucault 1972:49). According to Foucault, discourse is a term that signifies how a specific set of linguistic categories relates to an object, shaping our understanding or perception of it through the way we describe it (Bryman, 2016:640). Discourse analysis is rooted in the poststructuralist tradition, whereby language is constructed by the surrounding context and is therefore not static or objective (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002:3). Regarding this, Potter stresses that discourse analysis emphasises ‘how different versions of the world are produced in discourses’. In discourse analysis, language is described as creating or generating social reality; it is more than a tool for comprehending that reality. Discourse can therefore be seen as a form of action and is rhetorically organised (Bryman, 2016:640-644). Furthermore, discourse analysis aims to examine fixed meaning- making in terms of acknowledging how certain meanings become fixed to the extent that it is viewed as natural (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002:2). In this study, Bacchi’s approach ‘What is the problem represented to be?’ in discourse analysis is used as an analytical technique to answer the first and second sub-questions of this study. Originally, the WPR approach was a method for poststructuralism policy analysis. The approach is inspired by Foucault and is frequently used to deconstruct policies to address their logic (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:271). The approach is used as a tool to thoroughly examine perceptions of political and social issues, along with power relations that these perceptions create or maintain. This approach aims to demonstrate how certain perceptions regarding how a problem are constructed and hold legitimacy as the correct understanding, including the potential outcomes this may entail (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:271). What is perceived as a ‘problem’ is not fully determined or certain since it is socially constructed and can therefore be changed. Different and competing perceptions of a ‘problem’ should be regarded as emerging from separate discourses. Through the WPR approach, Bacchi aims to demonstrate the process of exposing these discourses (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:271). Additionally, Bacchi underlines that it is essential to critically examine and analyse the ‘problematisations’ and ‘problem representations’ rather than focusing solely on the problems themselves. Through the analysis of ‘problem representations’ one can explore the connection between discourse and the 25 concrete consequences that discourses might produce. A series of analytical questions are posed to the policy to ‘uncover’ and expose ‘problem representations’ and subject positions (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:271-273). Q1 What is the ‘problem’ represented to be in a specific policy? Q2 What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’? Q3 How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about? Q4 What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be thought about differently? Q5 What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’? Q6 How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated, and defended? How has it been (or could be) questioned, disrupted, and replaced? Figure 2. The analytical questions from the WPR approach (Bacchi, 2009: xii). To answer the first sub-question, the WPR approach’s questions are used as an analytical technique. However, all questions do not need to be used when examining a research question (Bergström & Ekström, 2018, 272). To answer the first sub-question, I used the first, third, fourth and sixth questions of the analytical questions. To answer the second sub-question, I used the second and the fifth question of the analytical questions in the WPR approach in combination with Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. A combination of these two approaches is essential since Laclau and Mouffe describe identity in relation to language more in-depth which is useful for answering the second sub-question. However, the WPR approach has significant questions that are valuable to thoroughly answer the research questions (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:260). The approach of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis focuses on power struggles within the broader societal context, positing that these can be examined through the ongoing linguistic struggles for meaning (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:260) The starting point is the linguistic level and ‘the logic of signs’. Signs consist of two parts, the signifier and signified, and the relation between these parts is unstable. The meaning of signs is therefore unfixed, and discourse theory focuses on this process of generating meaning: understanding when signs gain meaning and how this occurs. The outcomes of this process of meaning creation can be 26 understood as ‘current discourse surrounding a particular field’. Therefore, Laclu and Mouffe define discourse as ‘the structured totality resulting from the articulatory practice’ (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:260-261). The discourse is analysed with the analytical tools of ‘chains of equivalence’ and ‘nodal points’. These analytical tools have been chosen because they are suitable regarding the second sub- question and the empirical material. When it comes to chains of equivalence, a sign is considered to acquire meaning through a system of distinctions. A particular element is associated with or linked to certain signs, while the particular element is distinguished from other signs (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:262). Within a discourse, an element can fulfil a distinct role, serving as a node. Through the node, a specific meaning is established for the signs surrounding it. It can therefore be used to demonstrate how identities are constructed in opposition to each other (Bergström & Ekström, 2018:263). 4.3.2 Mainstream policy analysis Mainstream policy analysis is used as the second orientation of the method. The mainstream policy embodies studies in policy networks, policy processes and agenda-setting, and governance, whereby policy is widely understood as the interaction among interests, values, and resources, guided by institutions and influenced by politics, rather than being conceived as a thoroughly rational and linear process (Browne et al., 2019:1035). Mainstream policy analysis is adopted to answer the third sub-question, by using document analysis as the analytical technique. A document analysis of documents by the British government, UNHCR, and online articles is used as a method of data analysis to answer the final sub-question of this study. Document analysis is favourable for researchers who focus on specific case studies since it provides a context within the research field. Document analysis is therefore a suitable analytical method for this study since it has the characteristics of a case study (Bowen, 2009:31). Document analysis is a qualitative research technique, and the process entails assessing documents to interpret them, comprehend their meaning, and develop upon the information they present (Indeed, 2023). In document analysis, there are three main types of documents used to be analysed: public records, personal documents, and physical evidence. In this study, I have 27 chosen to analyse public records in terms of documents by the British Government, UNHCR, and online articles to answer the final sub-question (Bryman, 2016:664). Analysing documents includes coding content into themes, and guiding questions are adopted to conduct the document analysis. The guiding questions include who created these documents, what the documents contain, and when, where and why are the documents created (Indeed, 2023). These questions are used systematically in the analysis section to answer the third sub-question. In the process of selecting documents, I have considered the four criteria of authenticity, reliability, representativity, and validity (Bryman, 2016). Moreover, I have chosen document analysis since the document material provides a context within the research as well as providing additional insights. These aspects are essential to proceed from to answer the third sub-question. However, it is important to be aware that the documents are not complete or written objectively. Therefore, I as a researcher need to adopt a critical approach and not assume that the content is unbiased (Bowen, 2009:31-32). 5. Result and analysis In this section, I analyse the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership in the context of the UK’s stricter migration policy. I argue that the main motive of the policy is unwanted immigration to the UK, where the British Government has successfully securitised immigrants and is therefore one step closer to strengthening its borders. Furthermore, I claim that the policy has tendencies of racism, concluding that the policy is biased in terms of race. Lastly, I stress that the externalisation of migration is used as a political tool to strengthen British borders. Moreover, empirical material in terms of statements from selected documents is used to support my arguments. This section is divided into three sub- sections each related to one of the sub-questions. 5.1 Immigration as a threat to the British state In this section, I argue that the primary motive of the policy is unwanted immigration to the UK. At first glance, the empirical material indicated that the motives of the policy were to end illegal migration routes and introduce a global approach to the global migration crises, whereby Rwanda is argued to be a safe country to send refugees and asylum-seekers. However, after analysing the documents in-depth using the securitisation theory, I stress that the main motive of the policy is unwanted immigration. 28 Regarding the announcement of the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, the former Home Secretary Priti Patel stated the following: ‘Today we have signed a world-leading Migration Partnership with Rwanda which can see those arriving dangerously, illegally or unnecessarily into the UK relocated to have their asylum claims considered and, if recognised as refugees, to build their lives there. This will help break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life, while ensuring protection for the genuinely vulnerable’ (UK Parliament, 2022c). In the first statement made by the former Home Secretary, it is stated how the policy will end illegal migration routes, organised by criminal smuggling gangs, into the UK. The British Government underline that illegal routes are unjust as it advantages people with money who can pay people smugglers over vulnerable refugees who cannot (UK Parliament, 2022a). The capacity of the asylum system is limited, and the presence of economic migrants who are using the illegal routes is consequently limiting the state's ability to support vulnerable refugees, fleeing from conflict, war, violence, or persecution. The Government argue that access to the asylum system should not be determined by the ability to pay people smugglers, it should be based on need (UK Parliament, 2022a). The Government claim that the state can increase its capacity to support vulnerable people by making illegal routes unavailable. In other words, the policy is argued to be a humanitarian action with the aim to help the most vulnerable people and is primarily perceived as taking a stance with refugees (UK Parliament, 2022a). Moreover, the former Home Secretary stated the following: ‘The global migration crisis and how we tackle illegal migration requires new world-leading solutions. There are an estimated 80 million people displaced in the world and the global approach to asylum and migration is broken’ (UK Parliament, 2022c). In the second statement made by the former Home Secretary, the Government motivates the legitimise of the arrangement by stating how the global migration crisis requires a global approach, hence taking Rwanda into the equation. The safety and well-being of migrants should be a prioritised global responsibility and according to the UK Government, Rwanda has the 29 capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the coming years (UK Government, 2022b). The global asylum system is ‘broken’ according to Great Britain and Rwanda. The states advocate that this policy is a ‘world-leading’ approach. The approach is establishing new international standards and contributes to the humane and respectful treatment of refugees. The arrangement is claimed to be a win-win situation for both states, in which Rwanda is granted development funding, while the UK can reduce the number of refugees and asylum-seekers. The Government stress that the only way to tackle the global migration crisis is through a global approach where states cooperate with each other. As a result, resources will be directed towards those who are truly in need (UK Parliament, 2022a). In addition, the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated the following: ‘Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world, globally recognised for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants’ (UK Parliament, 2022e). In the third statement made by the former Prime Minister, the Conservative Party motivates the policy by stating that Rwanda is a safe country to send refugees and asylum-seekers to. The Government mentions that Rwanda has a history of hosting and providing shelter for hundreds of thousands of refugees. Rwanda has established adequate systems of refugee protection, aligned with the foundational principles of international solidarity that underpin the global refugee protection framework (UK Parliament, 2023). Additionally, the state is committed to the idea that collaboration and sharing the responsibility for refugee status claimants can be strengthened. The Government points out that Rwanda is internationally recognised for its low corruption, safety, gender equality, strong governance, and as one of the fastest growing economies in Africa (UK parliament, 2023). The UK Government further motivates and justifies the policy in regard to the UN-Rwanda case. The UN has used Rwanda as a destination for relocating vulnerable migrants from Libya. This arrangement was funded by the EU (UK Parliament, 2022b). In this case, through temporary evacuation to Rwanda, the state has provided life-saving protection, aid, and lasting solutions to highly vulnerable refugees confined in detention centres in Libya. Therefore, the Government argue that Rwanda is a safe and legitimate country to send refugees and asylum-seekers to (UK Parliament, 2022c). Additionally, the following statements have been made by the former Home Secretary and Prime Minister. 30 ‘As Home Secretary my primary responsibilities are to protect the British public and to act in their interest. That means taking steps to address the risks to human life, as well as the soaring costs to the UK taxpayer, that illegal migration entails. Those costs are now at their highest level in over two decades. The cost of the Asylum system stands at over £1.5 billion a year and we are spending over £4.7 million each day to accommodate migrants in hotels’ – Priti Patel (UK Government, 2022a). ‘We can’t ask the British taxpayer to write a blank cheque to cover the costs of anyone who might want to come and live here. Uncontrolled immigration creates unmanageable demands on our NHS and our welfare state, it overstretches our local schools, our housing and public transport, and creates unsustainable pressure to build on precious green spaces’ – Boris Johnson (UK Parliament, 2022e) In the fourth statement along with the aforementioned statements, I interpretative that the arrangement is the latest strategy by the British Government to restrict unwanted immigration into Great Britain. In the motivation of the policy, the Government pointed out that it is unfair that taxpayers pay 1,5 billion pounds sterling a year for the asylum system. This includes processing, integration, and accommodation costs (UK Parliament, 2022a). The British state is consequently portraying immigrants as the ‘problem’ of the deteriorating economy in the UK and a ‘burden’ to the economy of the British state at large. It is evident that the motive of the policy is to reduce the number of unwanted immigrants in the UK. These elements of portraying a certain object as an ‘issue’ or a ‘threat’ can be observed in the securitisation theory. As previously mentioned in the theoretical framework, the securitisation process includes three components to become successful: ‘(i) existential threats (ii) emergency action, and (iii) effects on interunit relations by breaking free rules’ (Buzan et al., 1998:26). In this case, the Government portrays immigrants as an existential ‘threat’ to the British state and its society. This has happened through a discourse process, whereby the state has socially constructed immigrants as a security ‘threat’. Through the speech act, the Government has securitised immigrants for being a ‘challenge’ by accusing them of wasting taxpayers’ money, hence being a ‘burden’ to the UK economy. According to a YouGov poll, the majority of those questioned supported the policy, the Government has therefore convinced the public opinion that immigrants are a ‘threat’ to the British state (Dathan, 2023). The public has accepted and legitimised the securitisation of immigrants as being an existential threat to the British state and 31 its society. Therefore, the Government can justify the policy and its extraordinary measures to send refugees and asylum-seekers to Rwanda (Buzan et al., 1998:26). The securitisation of immigrants by the British Government has not happened overnight. As mentioned in the literature review, immigrants have systematically been blamed for ‘taking’ native English people's jobs in the last decades, thus the creation of Englishness. The rise of Englishness has consequently led to the portrayal of immigrants as a scapegoat for the issues that the UK is facing such as the faltering economy (Menjívar et al., 2019). The Government has used this narrative to securitise immigrants as an existential ‘threat’ to the British state and its society. Through the securitising of immigrants, the Conservative Party can argue the importance of the policy, hence making it accepted by the public and is therefore able to justify its extraordinary actions in terms of implementing it in practice (Buzan et al., 1998:26). To conclude, the UK Government perceive itself as doing a ‘good cause’ by claiming that the policy is a life-saving humanitarian action that will protect the most vulnerable refugees by deterring illegal migration routes. The Conservative Party illuminates that the policy is a world- leading solution with the argument that the global migration crisis needs a global approach, where it is further claimed that Rwanda is a safe country to send refugees and asylum-seekers to. The Government has successfully securitised immigrants, and the policy can therefore be used as a political tool to strengthen the British borders from unwanted immigration (Buzan et al., 1998:26). In the next sub-section, I investigate what underlying structures can be identified in the policy by the British Government. 5.2 Identity politics and political polarisation In this chapter, I argue that the policy has tendencies of racism. After analysing the documents in-depth using postcolonial theory and its core concepts, identity structures of race have been identified in the policy, concluding that the policy is biased in terms of race. Moreover, after analysing the empirical material in-depth, I was able to uncover the colonial discourse of ‘us’ and ‘them’. This dichotomy is used by the UK Government in terms of identity politics, using the fear of the ‘other’ to justify the policy. As previously mentioned in the literature review, hostility against immigrants in Great Britain has risen significantly in the last decades. Migration became the main topic in the Leave 32 campaign surrounding Brexit. It was the EU’s incapacity to handle the refugee crisis and its free movement within the union that created scepticism and hesitation among the British people towards the EU. Several European states including Britain have had open-door policies towards refugees and asylum-seekers for decades (Menjívar et al., 2019). As a result, native English people became more aware of their own identity of Englishness and became anti-immigrant, blaming immigrants for the deteriorating economy in the UK. Hansen explains that the identity of both self and others is created when states are exposed to crises, threats, and security issues (Hansen, 2006:6). The rise in Englishness resulted in anti-immigration propaganda in the UK, portraying immigrants as a ‘challenge’ to the British state and its society. Western Europe including the UK has prejudices of immigrants being outsiders, adding racism, hence building an anti-immigration movement. As a result, a distinction between British people and immigrants has been created based on identity. The Conservative Party use identity politics to their advantage and is using the fear of the ‘other’ in its political strategy to justify the policy to the British public (Burney, 2012:23). Moreover, the former Home Secretary stated the following: ‘This government is delivering the first comprehensive overhaul of the asylum system in decades. At the heart of this approach is fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. The demands on the current system, the cost to the taxpayer, and the flagrant abuses are increasing. The British public have rightly had enough’ (UK Government, 2022b). In this statement, the former Home Secretary use the distinction between the British people and immigrants, wanting to make it clear that there is a difference between people and their identity. As mentioned in the theoretical framework, the term Othering consists of the difference between the Occident referred to as the familiar, the West and ‘us’, and the Orient referred to as the strange, the East and ‘them’, whereby the first mentioned is considered superior to the latter. It can be interpreted that the British Government is producing the colonial discourse of the West and the rest, whereby the discourse gives rise to acceptance of polarisation (Short & Kambouri, 2010:280). In the statement and the policy at large, there is a distinction between British people and immigrants where British people are portrayed as the Occident, while immigrants are presented as the Orient. In other words, British people are considered to be superior to immigrants. The narrative of ‘us’ and ‘them’ is creating polarisation in the form of 33 antagonism between British people and immigrants. The dichotomy of these two is socially constructed and is consequently increasing the identity of Englishness, hence making it possible for the Government to conduct this sort of policy since it is accepted by the British public. Not to mention the least, it will further tighten the UK migration policy (Burney, 2012:23). As aforementioned, the Government is upholding the dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in the policy, in which colonial traits can be observed in the arrangement since it is characterised by the colonial discourse of the West and the rest. In this case, British people are regarded as ‘us’, while immigrants are perceived as ‘them’. It can therefore be argued that colonialism is embedded in the structures of the contemporary world. According to postcolonialism, institutions and practices of world politics are in present-day affected by the colonial history, whereby colonialism is visible in the structures of society and world politics (Biswas, 2021:221- 224). In this case, the Government is upholding the colonial discourse by producing a policy that has tendencies of racism. As mentioned previously, the rise of Englishness and the anti- immigration movement has a correlation with the fear of the ‘other’, whereby immigrants are portrayed as the ‘villain’ and a ‘burden’ to the British state and its society. The policy further upholds the distinction between British people and immigrants, consequently excluding immigrants from society who are further being dehumanised by being relocated to Rwanda (Bourke, 2019:470). One of the most common outcomes of an anti-immigration movement is exclusion. In this case, the policy constructed by the British Government excludes immigrants from British society, hence violating the human rights of refugees and asylum-seekers (UNHCR, 2022a). The policy is used as a political tool to further tighten British migration policy. In addition, the House of Commons stated the following in their research briefing: ‘EU citizens who claim asylum are excluded from the inadmissibility process’ (UK Parliament, 2022g). In the research briefing of the policy, it is stated that EU citizens are excluded from the process. According to the British Government, EU citizens are covered by different rules. The Government is once again making a distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and in this case based on race. This mirrors how race operates within political institutions in the contemporary world and in accordance with the postcolonial theory that race is embedded in the structures and world politics. (Anievas et al., 2015:46). The policy is characterised by the colonial discourse of the West and the rest, whereby EU citizens – ‘us’ – are excluded from the arrangement, while people 34 from outside EU – ‘them’ – are not. In other words, refugees and asylum-seekers from outside the EU may be relocated to Rwanda, however, this does not imply EU citizens. Not to mention that Ukrainian refugees are excluded from the policy. This statement in the research briefing indicates racial oppression against people that are not EU citizens, people of colour (Nair, 2022). The terms migration and race are often mutually constitutive, and there is no exception in this policy (Song, 2013:169). In the following statements, an identity construction of British people and immigrants itself is visible, relying on the logic of immigrants as the ‘other’. The results of the chains of equivalence indicate how identity is socially constructed by the UK Government (Wibben & Rutazibwa, 2019:90). The statements have been made by Home Secretary Suella Braverman and former Home Secretary Priti Patel. ‘We cannot tolerate people coming here illegally. It is not legitimate to leave a safe country such as France to seek asylum in the United Kingdom’ – Suella Braverman (UK Parliament, 2022b). ‘We will not have a migration system that can be abused and exploited by those who do not have legitimate claims to be here’ – Suella Braverman (UK Parliament, 2022b). ‘It is illegal, and it is not necessary, because they are coming from other safe countries. It is not fair, either on those who play by the rules or on the British taxpayers who have to foot this bill’ – Priti Patel (UK Parliament, 2022f). In these statements, the British Government and government officials portray immigrants as the ‘other’. They predicate the subject of immigrants as non-whiteness, illegal, burden, exploitative and greedy. This is based on immigrants arriving in Great Britain illegally with the help of people smugglers, taking advantage of the UK asylum system and wasting taxpayers’ money. Consequently, immigrants are portrayed as a burden to British society. Furthermore, immigrants are described as exploitative and greedy since they are exploiting the EU asylum system in regard to the Dublin Regulation by transiting through a safe country such as France in the process of arriving in the UK (UK Parliament, 2022d). This constructs a chain of equivalation around the nodal point of immigration in the following way: Immigrants – non-whiteness – illegal – burden – exploitative – greedy 35 The following statements have been made by Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Gareth Johnson MP of Great Britain. ‘Since 2015, this kind and generous country has welcomed nearly 450,000 people through safe and legal routes. The British people are eager to help those in need and they support controlled migration. They have opened their homes to refugees’ – Suella Braverman (UK Parliament, 2022c). ‘What is clear is that the current situation in the channel is deathly. What we need to do is smash the business model of the people smugglers, and ensure that we have a safe and human route for those people who have been transferred to Rwanda’ – Gareth Johnson (UK Parliament, 2022d). Through these statements, the identity of the British people is constructed in opposition to the identity of immigrants. Contrary to immigrants, the British Government predicate itself – the British people – as open-minded and supportive regarding its history of welcoming refugees and asylum-seekers, fleeing conflict, violence, war or persecution. Furthermore, the Government highlights the generosity of the British people during the migration crisis in 2015, welcoming nearly half a million refugees and asylum-seekers (UK Parliament, 2022c). On the basis that the Government portrays the British people as being moral and stance for justice, the following chain of equivalation around the sign British people can be constructed: British people – whiteness – openness – generosity– supportive – heroes The identities of British people and immigrants are constructed in opposition to each other in terms of signs, meaning that they are unstable and not fixed. In this case, the signs are determined on the colonial discourse of the West and the rest. As a result, a distinction has been created between British people and immigrants, in which immigrants are predicated by the Government as the ‘other’, illegal, villain, and greedy. On the contrary, the Government predicate British people as welcoming and kind-hearted, portraying themselves as heroes (UK Parliament, 2022c). To sum up, after deconstructing the policy, identity structures of race have been identified in the policy, concluding that the policy is biased in terms of race. I therefore argue that the policy 36 has tendencies of racism. In addition, having analysed the documents in-depth, I was able to uncover the colonial discourse of the West and the rest. The dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’, in this case, the British people and immigrants, is used by the British Government in terms of identity politics, using the fear of the ‘other’ to justify the policy, hence a stricter UK migration policy at large (Burney, 2012:23). 5.3 Externalisation and its colonial traits In this section, I stress that elements of externalisation of migration in the policy are used as a political tool to strengthen the British borders and establish controlled immigration. As a result, the British migration policy will become severely stricter, while Rwanda will welcome tens of thousands of refugees and asylum-seekers who are not welcome to stay in the UK. I further argue that the UK constructed this policy to ‘protect’ its borders from unwanted immigration. The UK has welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing conflict and persecution for decades and is providing important contributions that help protect refugees and support countries in conflicts such as Ukraine. In addition, it has a historical reputation for being a welcoming country for refugees and asylum-seekers (UNHCR, 2022b). However, the state has issues with illegal migration and the Conservative Party is criticising the open border policy, hence the awakening of externalisation of migration in the context of British migration policy. The policy has elements of externalisation, whereby refugees and asylum-seekers that arrive at their destination illegally may be sent to a third country, in this case, the UK has an externalisation arrangement with Rwanda (Frelick, Kysel, & Podkul, 2016:193). The British Government uses the colonial discourse of the West and the rest to legitimise the use of externalisation in the policy, used as a political tool to further tighten the migration policy (Burney, 2012:23). The UK Government stresses the need for closed borders and controlled immigration to content the British people that are accusing immigrants of ‘stealing’ their jobs and being a ‘burden’ to the British state and its society including the domestic economy. The policy is seen as a promising tool to restrict unwanted and illegal migration into the UK, hence the possibility of controlled immigration. This is possible by shifting the responsibility to countries in the global south such as Rwanda. If the policy is ruled lawful and later implemented in practice, it will undoubtedly attract voters to the next election due to illegal immigration being a major problem in the UK. Additionally, it can be argued how timely the policy was announced in regard to the election in January 2025, and it can therefore be interpretive that the 37 state has its own political agenda and interests besides making a development deal with Rwanda. By enforcing closed borders, the UK does not need to deal with immigrants directly, the responsibility is instead shifted onto Rwanda. Closed borders and controlled immigration will consequently lead to a more restricted migration policy (Crisp, 2020). The use of externalisation in migration policies is a new way of thinking and dealing with migrants, and as the British Government argues, the global migration crisis requires international solutions (UK Parliament, 2022b). By shifting responsibility to countries in the global south, Western states can ‘protect’ their own borders from unwanted and illegal immigration, hence introducing an era of closed borders and controlled migration. In 2023, the Prime Minister stated the following: ‘And once you are removed, you will be banned, like you are in America and Australia, from ever re-entering our country’ – Rishi Sunak (Howard, 2023). After analysing statements and the policy at large, I interpret that Australia and its migration policy is a model for the UK. The Government has cited policies implemented by Australia over the past decade, including offshore asylum processing, in support of its plan (UK Parliament, 2022h). Australia is well known for having a strict migration policy and has a history of externalisation in its policies. As aforementioned in the theoretical framework, Australia has several cases of sending asylum-seekers to detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru (Crisp, 2020). This policy with elements of externalisation is considered successful by the Australian Government, and the UK has therefore decided to follow in the footsteps of Australia and its controversial migration policy with the aim to enhance controlled migration (Matera et al., 2023). If the policy is ruled lawful by the Supreme Court, the British Government can implement the policy in practice and start to send refugees and asylum-seekers to Rwanda. This would be a crucial turning point in British migration policy. The UK use the externalisation of migration as a political tool to ‘protect’ its borders from unwanted immigration by shifting responsibility to a low-income country such as Rwanda. This sort of arrangement including human displacement can be argued as 21st-century imperialism. A scheme of this sort is a strategy of empowerment for an already powerful nation (Nair, 2022). Furthermore, this policy allows the UK to offload unwanted immigrants onto Rwanda, especially those who come from outside Europe. Consequently, the policy will enforce a stricter migration policy in the UK at 38 the expense of interfering with the human rights of refugees and asylum-seekers (UNHCR, 2022b). What needs to take into consideration is that several countries in Europe have issues with unwanted and illegal immigration, and with the rise of far-right politics in Europe, there is a risk of finding elements of externalisation in future migration policies. In Western states including the UK, there is an aspiration with closed borders and a more controlled immigration. If the policy is ruled lawful, there is a risk of a chain reaction in countries in the global north by them implementing similar policies (Borger, 2023). Nevertheless, Johnsons stated that the scheme is a prototype, meaning that it could be replicated elsewhere. This indicates that there are plans and strategies to further include externalisation in migration policies to control immigrants. In other words, the UK Government are determined to eliminate the open border policy (Nair, 2022). To conclude, the policy has elements of externalisation and is used as a political tool by the Conservative Party to further tighten the British borders from unwanted immigration. By shifting the responsibility of migration onto Rwanda, the UK can reduce the number of unwanted immigrants by tens of thousands. Consequently, British migration policy will become stricter, however, at the expense of refugees and asylum-seekers. The policy will systematically violate the human rights of refugees and asylum-seekers (UNHCR, 2022c). 6. Conclusion This dissertation aimed to examine how the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership is motivated by the British Government, the underlying identity structures of the policy, and how the policy affects the governance of the UK’s borders, concluding that immigrants are perceived as a threat to the British state. Consequently, the perception of immigrants as a ‘threat’ is used by the Government to justify the policy and to further tighten the British migration policy. The following sections present the conclusions of the analysis. The MoU by the British Government presented that the motive for this policy is to end illegal migration routes and introduce a global approach to the global migration crisis, whereby it is 39 argued that Rwanda is a safe country to send refugees and asylum-seekers. However, after analysing the policy in-depth using the securitisation theory, I argue that the main motive for this policy is to reduce the number of unwanted immigrants into Great Britain. The Government has portrayed immigrants as an existential ‘threat’ to the British state. Through the speech of act, the state has securitised immigrants for being a ‘burden’ to the state and its society with regard to wasting taxpayers’ money. Additionally, the Government has convinced the public that immigrants are an existential ‘threat’ to the British state, in which the public has accepted the securitisation. Therefore, the state can justify the policy and its extraordinary measures to send refugees and asylum-seekers to Rwanda, concluding that the main intention of this policy is to restrict unwanted immigration into the UK (Buzan et al., 1998:26). After analysing the empirical material in-depth, I was able to uncover identity structures of race in the policy, concluding that the policy is biased in terms of race. I therefore argue that the policy has tendencies of racism. Moreover, after conducting a thorough analysis of the documents, I was able to expose the colonial discourse of the West and the rest. The discourse is systematically used by the British Government in policies and statements to uphold the dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’, whereby the British people are superior to immigrants (Burney, 2012:23). The discourse is used by the Government in terms of identity politics, using the fear of the ‘other’ to justify the policy, aiming to force a stricter immigration policy. Furthermore, the chains of equivalence and nodal points indicate that race is visible in the policy in terms of immigrants being equivalent to ‘non-whiteness’, while British people constitute ‘whiteness’. The policy has elements of externalisation of migration, and the policy aims to shift the responsibility of migrants onto Rwanda to avoid unwanted immigration. If the policy is ultimately ruled lawful by the Supreme Court, the British borders will become more secure resulting in a stricter migration policy. In addition, the policy will result in a chain reaction by other Western states due to the trend of far-right policies. These states will enforce similar policies and use the externalisation of migration as a political tool to address the global migration crisis, however, mainly to avoid the responsibility of migrants. Consequently, the human rights of refugees and asylum-seekers will systematically be violated (UNHCR, 2022b). Moreover, the global south will be exploited by states in the global north, which will create an even more imbalance in world politics. Additionally, it should be noted that the UK made payments to Rwanda even before the policy was ruled lawful. This indicates the desperation of the British Government to tighten its migration policy in time for the election in 2025. However, 40 it also demonstrates the power of Western states in the international arena, including their national interest on the agenda (Borger, 2023). To conclude this study, I argue that the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership is the latest strategy by the British Government to strengthen its borders and establish controlled immigration, consequently enforcing a stricter migration policy. Through a successful securitising of immigrants, the state has the power to introduce this sort of policy while arguing that stricter borders are a national interest. Furthermore, the Government is upholding the dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in terms of identity politics, using the fear of the ‘other’ to justify the policy and a stricter migration policy at large. Lastly, the Government use externalisation of migration in the policy to shift the responsibility of migrants onto Rwanda, with the aim of securing its borders from unwanted immigration. This indicates the Government’s attempt at a stricter British migration policy (Nair, 2022). This study is limited to the British perspective and provides case-based empirical evidence on how securitisation and identity politics are interlinked with the externalisation of migration governance. However, I suggest that further research should focus on the humanitarian aspect of the policy since it is severely interfering with the human rights of refugees and asylum- seekers. In detail, the humanitarian aspect of the policy should be researched in the legal field of humanitarian law to get a more detailed analysis of the implications of the policy (UNHCR, 2022a). Moreover, there is a risk of finding elements of externalisation in future migration policies amongst Western states due to the rise of far-right politics. For that reason, it is vital for further research to study the phenomenon of externalisation of migration regarding its effects. As aforementioned, the study only focuses on the British aspect of the policy and does not include the Rwandan perspective. In future research, focus on the destination country should be illuminated to investigate how the policy affects the refugees and asylum-seekers as well as the country in the global south, and examine whether this sort of policy is a sustainable approach. 41 7. References Abrahamsen, R. (2003). African Studies and the Postcolonial Challenge, African Affairs 102, (407), 189-210. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2019). The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at its Centenary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amnesty. (n.d.). Refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. Retrieved 2023-08-08 from https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/ Anievas, A., Manchanda, N., & Shilliam, R. (2015). Race and racism in international relations: Confronting the global colour line. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge Bacchi, C. (2009) Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest, N.S.W: Pearson Bachmann, V., & Sidaway, J. (2016). Brexit geopolitics. Geoforum, 77, 47-50. Balzacq, T. (2011). Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. London: Routledge. BBC. (2023). What is the UK's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda? Retrieved 2023-06-05 from https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-61782866 Bergström, G., & Ekström, L. (2018). In Boréus, K., & Bergström, G. (Ed). Textens mening och makt: metodbok i samhällsvetenskaplig text- och diskursanalys. (4 ed., pp. 253-304). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Bhalla, N., & Taylor, L. (2023). Besides Britain, which nations send asylum seekers overseas? Context. Retrieved 2023-06-06 from https://www.context.news/socioeconomic- inclusion/besides-britain-which-nations-send-asylum-seekers-overseas 42 Biswas, S. (2021). Postcolonialism. In Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (Ed). International Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity (5 ed., pp. 220-236). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borger, J. (2023). Rwanda scheme would ‘completely erode’ UK’s standing on world stage. The Guardian. Retrieved 2023-06-06 from https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/mar/26/rwanda-scheme-would-completely-erode-uks- standing-on-world-stage Bourke, J. (2019). Why does politics turn to violence? In Edkins, J., & Zehfuss, M. (Ed). Global Politics: a new introduction (3 ed., pp 454-476). London, New York: Routledge. Bowen, G. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. Browne, J., Coffey, B., Cook, K., Meiklejohn, S., & Palermo, C. (2019). A guide to policy analysis as a research method. Health Promotion International, 34(5), 1032-1044. Bryman, A. (2016). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. Stockholm: Liber. Burney, S. (2012). CHAPTER ONE: Orientalism: The Making of the Other. Counterpoints, 417, 23-39. Buzan, B. (1991). People, states and fear: an agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era (2 ed.). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publisher. Clark, P. (personal communication, 14 June, 2023) Crisp, J. (2020). What is Externalization and Why is it a Threat to Refugees? Retrieved 2023- 06-21 from https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/10/what-externalization-and-why-it-threat- refugees 43 Danermark, B., Ekström, M., & Karlsson, J. (2018). Att förklara samhället. (3 Ed). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Dathan, M. (2023). Almost half of Britons back Rwanda policy but most doubt it will work. The Times. Retrieved 2023-08-13 from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/half-of-britons- support-rwanda-crisis-latest-poll-migration-km8zgnm6b ECHR. (2022). The European Court grants urgent interim measure in case concerning asylum- seeker’s imminent removal from the UK to Rwanda. Retrieved 2023-06-05 from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-7359967-10054452%22]} FitzGerald, D. (2019). Refuge beyond Reach: How Rich Democracies Repel Asylum Seekers. New York: Oxford University Press. Fleming, L. (2022). UK asylum deal: Is Rwanda a land of safety or fear? BBC News. Retrieved 2023-06-07 from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-61111915 Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of Knowledge. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Freeman, M. (2011). Human Rights (2 Ed). Cambridge: Polity Press. Frelick, B., Kysel, I., & Podkul, J. (2016). The Impact of Externalization of Migration Controls on the Rights of Asylum Seekers and Other Migrants. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 4(4), 190-220. Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice discourse analysis and the Bosnian war. London: Routledge. Howard, J. (2023). Illegal Migration Bill introduced to UK parliament as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak vows to stop the boats. ABC News. Retrieved 2023-06-06 from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-08/sunak-illegal-migration-bill-introduced-to-uk- parliament/102066506 44 Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the Securitization of Migration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751-777. Huysmans, J. (2006). The politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. Florence: Routledge. Indeed. (2023). Document Analysis Guide: Definition and How to Perform It. Retrieved 2023- 07-03 from https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/document-analysis Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE Publications. Lazaridis, G., & Wadia, K. (2015). The securitisation of migration in the EU: Debates since 9/11. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Manzo, K. (2019). Do colonialism and slavery belong to the past? In Edkins, J., & Zehfuss, M. (Ed): Global Politics (3 ed., pp 298-319). London, New York: Routledge. Matera, M., Tubakovic, T., & Murray, P. (2023). Is Australia a Model for the UK? A Critical Assessment of Parallels of Cruelty in Refugee Externalization Policies. Journal of Refugee Studies, 36(2), 271-293. McConnon, E. (2022). People as security risks: The framing of migration in the UK security- development nexus. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(6), 1381-1397. Menjívar, C., Ruiz, M., & Ness, I. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Migration Crises (1 Ed). New York: Oxford University Press. Nair, P. (2022). How the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is 21st-century imperialism writ large. The Conversation. Retrieved 2023-07-10 from https://theconversation.com/how-the-uks-plan-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-is-21st- century-imperialism-writ-large-181501 45 Nyman, J. (2018). Securitization. In Paul D. Williams, P., & McDonald, M. (Ed.) Security Studies: An Introduction (p. 100-113). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge Representative of UNHCR Rwanda (personal communication, 19 May, 2023) Russell, R., & Andersson, J. (2022). Rwanda migrant plan is lawful, High Court rules. BBC News. Retrieved 2023-06-07 from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64024461 Sabaratnam, M. (2020). Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical Texts. Millennium, 49(1), 3-31. Said, E. (2000). Orientalism. Stockholm: Ordfront. Shani, G. (2019). Who has rights? In Edkins, J., & Zehfuss, M. (Ed): Global Politics (3 ed., pp 524-544). London, New York: Routledge. Short, N., & Kambouri, H. (2010). Ambiguous universalism: Theorising race nation class in international relations. Journal of International Relations and Development, 13(3), 268-300. Song, M. (2013). The changing configuration of migration and race. In Routledge International Handbook of Migration Studies (pp.184-194). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Squire, Vicki. (2015). The Securitisation of Migration: An Absent Presence? In Lazaridis, G., & Wadia, K. (Ed): The Securitisation of Migration in the EU: Debates since 9/11 (p. 19-36). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Taylor, D., & Quinn, B. (2023). Braverman plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful, appeal court rules. The Guardian. Retrieved 2023-06-29 from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/29/plan-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda- is-unlawful-uk-appeal-court-rules 46 The Economist. (2022). Britain’s deal to shift asylum-seekers to Rwanda is part of a larger trend. Retrieved 2023-06-06 from https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/04/15/britains- deal-to-shift-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-is-part-of-a-larger- trend?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=18151738051&p pcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct- response.anonymous&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlPCGzYSs_wIVk94YCh2FOAPZEAAYASAA EgLdC_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds UCL. (2021). Brexit driven by cultural values and national identity more than social class. Retrieved 2023-06-15 from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2021/feb/brexit-driven-cultural- values-and-national-identity-more-social-class UK Government. (2022a). Response from Rt Hon Priti Patel to Mathew Rycroft (accessible). Retrieved 2023-08-14 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and- economic-development-partnership-ministerial-direction/letter-from-matthew-rycroft-to-rt- hon-priti-patel-accessible UK Government. (2022b). World first partnership to tackle global migration crisis. Retrieved 2023-07-19 from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-partnership-to-tackle- global-migration-crisis UK Parliament. (2022a). Factsheet: Migration and Economic Development Partnership. Retrieved 2023-07-18 from https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2022/04/14/factsheet- migration-and-economic-development-partnership/ UK Parliament. (2023). Memorandum of Understanding between the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the government of the Republic of Rwanda for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement. Retrieved 2023-06-07 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between- the-uk-and-rwanda/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-united- kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-and-the-government-of-the-republic-of-r 47 UK Parliament. (2022b). Migration and Economic Development. Retrieved 2023-07-19 from https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-12-19/debates/B5009C67-E69A-4248-8F16- 77439DE48472/MigrationAndEconomicDevelopment UK Parliament. (2022c). Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda. Retrieved 2023-07-27 from https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-12- 20/debates/F7CBAA55-F538-4574-82C8- 572B9EDBC0D4/MigrationAndEconomicDevelopmentPartnershipWithRwanda UK Parliament. (2022d). Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda: equality impact assessment (accessible). Retrieved 2023-06-07 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-economic-development- partnership-with-rwanda/migration-and-economic-development-partnership-with-rwanda- equality-impact-assessment-accessible UK Parliament. (2022e). PM speech on action to tackle illegal migration: 14 April 2022. Retrieved 2023-07-19 from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-action- to-tackle-illegal-migration-14-april-2022 UK Parliament. (2022f). Rwanda Partnership: Legal Compatibility. Retrieved 2023-07-27 from https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-10-18/debates/9301BE0F-6C57-4014- 917C-5A91207C6CF9/RwandaPartnershipLegalCompatibility UK Parliament. (2022g). The UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership. London: UK Government. UK Parliament. (2022h). UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership. Retrieved 2023-06-07 from https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp- 9568/ UNHCR. (n.d.). Asylum seekers. Retrieved 2023-08-08 from https://www.unhcr.org/ke/asylum- seekers 48 UNHCR. (2023a). Migrant definition. Retrieved 2023-08-08 from https://emergency.unhcr.org/protection/legal-framework/migrant-definition UNHCR. (2023b). Refugee definition. Retrieved 2023-08-08 from https://emergency.unhcr.org/protection/legal-framework/refugee-definition UNHCR. (2022a). UNHCR Analysis of the Legality and Appropriateness of the Transfer of Asylum Seekers under the UK-Rwanda arrangement. Genève: UNHCR. UNHCR. (2022b). UNHCR notes UK High Court judgement on transfer of asylum-seekers from the UK to Rwanda. Retrieved 2023-07-27 from https://www.unhcr.org/news/news- comment-unhcr-notes-uk-high-court-judgement-transfer-asylum-seekers-uk-rwanda UNHCR. (2022c). UN Refugee Agency opposes UK plan to export asylum. Retrieved 2023-07- 27 from https://www.unhcr.org/news/news-releases/un-refugee-agency-opposes-uk-plan- export-asylum Vetenskapsrådet. (2017). God forskningssed. Retrieved 2023-06-30 from https://www.vr.se/download/18.2412c5311624176023d25b05/1555332112063/God- forskningssed_VR_2017.pdf Von Rosen, J. (2019). The Securitization of Migration as a Threat to Liberal, Democratic Societies. S F, 37(1), 35–40. Wibben, A., & Rutazibwa, O. (2019). Who do we think we are? In Edkins, J., & Zehfuss, M. (Ed): Global Politics (3 ed., pp 79-101). London, New York: Routledge. Young, R. (2001). Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. 49