![The Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN. [PHOTO CREDIT: Ehud Kaduna]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2022/01/20200913_161409-scaled-e1652250793565.jpg?fit=2387%2C1702&ssl=1)
United States (US) President Donald Trump’s policy of deporting foreign nationals convicted of violent crimes has sparked a global uproar. It also highlights the stark power imbalance between the US and developing countries, and raises serious concerns about security risks, human rights abuses and the denigration of international humanitarian law.
The controversy started in March when the US paid El Salvador $5 million to incarcerate over 250 Venezuelan deportees accused of gang affiliations, in a maximum-security prison notorious for human rights abuses. Though the deal’s terms remain unknown, the rewards appear to include a White House visit and endorsement of President Nayib Bukele, despite alarm over his repression of civil liberties.
|
|
Since then, the Trump administration has expanded this policy to Africa, with recent deportations of individuals from countries such as Vietnam, Jamaica and Yemen to South Sudan and Eswatini. The Department of Homeland Security justified the decision by saying their home countries refused ‘to take them back.’
The deportations were enabled by a June US Supreme Court ruling that allows migrants to be sent to third countries without notice or legal recourse. The judgement overrules protections in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that prevent deportations to countries where people are at risk of torture.
|
|
|
|---|
Despite the US being a party to the convention, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority set aside those safeguards, granting the government broad authority to expedite deportations. The majority opinion provided no reasons for its findings. In contrast, the minority opinion stressed that life-and-death matters required careful attention and adherence to the rule of law.
The abandonment of international law by way of the court’s ruling also casts doubt on whether it intends to uphold America’s obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. These frameworks prohibit the return of refugees to countries where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
In April, the US reportedly paid Rwanda $100,000 to accept an Iraqi refugee accused by Iraq of having ties to the Islamic State. The decision was taken despite a 2023 US State Department report detailing Rwanda’s harsh and life-threatening prison conditions.
Similarly, The New York Times recently reported that a US diplomat urged Eswatini officials in March to accept deportees even though another State Department report documented human rights abuses there, including extrajudicial killings and torture. These concerns seem warranted. On 31 July, the Southern Africa Litigation Centre filed an urgent High Court application against Eswatini’s correctional services department for denying the deportees access to legal counsel.
Rights implications aside, the deportations have deepened public distrust in host country governments. Secrecy surrounding the deals exacerbates instability in both countries, which are already burdened by violence, instability and crackdowns on pro-democracy movements.
Many citizens believe the US has used aid and trade to pressure South Sudan and Eswatini into compliance and gain favour with the Trump administration, triggering fears over what was promised in exchange.
The US’s approach reflects a troubling perception of Africa as a ‘dumping ground’ for foreign nationals convicted of violent crimes, rather than a strategic partner in global security. But outsourcing migration is not unique to the US.
Australia, the United Kingdom and European Union have long focused on outsourcing asylum processing and returns to African countries. While aimed at controlling migration, this shifts the administrative burden to nations with limited resources and weak protections. These policies raise ethical and legal questions about how asylum seekers and refugees are treated by Western countries, reflecting a view that Africa’s interests are less important than their own.
Mr Trump’s pledge to ‘make America great again’ has translated into a sharp focus on expelling foreign nationals convicted of violent crimes, prioritising US interests above all else. In his first six months in office, he dismantled US soft power by cutting foreign aid, insisting America had gotten a raw deal from its global counterparts.
This shift was highlighted during an April cabinet meeting when Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasised that instead of asking ‘what is good for the world,’ every diplomatic decision would now ask: ‘Is it good for America?’ He said that US foreign policy would be guided by whether it made America stronger, safer, or richer.
Mr Rubio said the Trump administration was ‘actively searching for other countries to take people from third countries,’ stressing this was a global effort. ‘We’re approaching nations to ask, “Will you take some of the most despicable human beings as a favour to us? The farther from America, the better.”’
In May, CBS News reported the US had asked Angola, Benin, Equatorial Guinea and Libya to accept deportees. In June, The New York Times revealed the Trump administration pressured 58 countries, many in Africa, to accept deportees. This ‘intense diplomatic campaign’ targeted nations facing US travel bans, visa restrictions or tariffs, raising concerns that some leaders may comply regardless of whether it serves their country’s interests.
And in July, Mr Trump hosted a mini-summit in the White House with the leaders of Senegal, Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Gabon. The meeting was mainly about the five countries’ critical minerals wealth, although making deals on accepting US deportees has been suggested as the underlying motive.
According to Nigeria’s Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar, the US was ‘mounting considerable pressure’ on African countries to accept deportees. He said Nigeria outright rejected the deal, saying the country had enough problems of its own.
READ ALSO: NACA targets health insurance, local drugs to sustain HIV response
Such policies will likely erode years of diplomatic progress and US-Africa relations, especially in intelligence, counter-terrorism and anti-trafficking, which have already suffered significant setbacks during Mr Trump’s second term. These actions show that Trump is using diplomacy to secure America’s short-term interests at the expense of human rights and regional security in Africa.
As African nations reconsider their ties to a Trump administration that treats them as expendable, these deportation policies – shaped by short-term, unilateral decisions amid complex global threats – serve the interests of no one, including America.
Dr Kelly E Stone, Senior Consultant, Justice and Violence Prevention, Institute for Security Studies (ISS) Pretoria
(This article was first published by ISS Today, a Premium Times syndication partner. We have their permission to republish).
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
