An internal paper from Austria's ministry of the interior outlines the government's plans to turn east African countries into “transit hubs” for rejected asylum seekers — regardless of where they come from.
When foreign minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger of the liberal Neos party set off on her first visit to Africa in mid-October, everything seemed like business as usual.
A summit meeting in Kampala, talks with Austrian companies, a brief reference to “deeper cooperation” on the issue of migration — this was all the official press release contained.
But behind this matter-of-fact wording lies a far-reaching plan.
An internal government document obtained by der Standard reveals what Austria may really have been exploring in Uganda: the possibility of setting up transit centres for rejected asylum seekers, regardless of whether or not they have come from Uganda.
The paper outlines plans to accommodate rejected asylum seekers in a “partner country” until they can be deported to their country of origin. It refers to “transit hubs” that will serve as holding camps when it has not been possible to forcibly return people from Europe – because some countries rarely allow their nationals back, for example.
One such country is Somalia, and the document explicitly names Somalis as the “main target group.”
According to information obtained by der Standard, the undated document, apparently still in draft form, was discussed during Meinl-Reisinger's trip to Uganda.
It names the interior ministry, foreign ministry and chancellery as the lead departments involved, and Rwanda as the proposed partner country, stating that the partnership should be “mutually beneficial” and based on “long-term investment and trust”.
According to informed sources, however, Uganda is now the more likely candidate.
In response to our enquiry, the Interior and foreign ministries confirmed that talks with third countries were taking place, led by Meinl-Reisinger and interior minister Gerhard Karner (of the centre-right Austrian People's Party, ÖVP), but gave no further details, saying they do not comment on internal documents.
The foreign ministry neither confirmed nor denied that Uganda is currently considered the main partner for the “transit hubs,” but did state that “the discussions being conducted by foreign minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger on her foreign trips are about implementing the government’s programme”.
It added that the government always works “in close consultation” with other EU countries on this issue, including the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.
The Netherlands announced a similar model for transit hubs in partnership with Uganda at the end of October. The Financial Times spoke of it as a “Trump-like deal”.
The Dutch government was unperturbed by this, but anticipates legal challenges. Unlike similar US plans, the Dutch model will involve international organisations. The Austrian paper also refers to international involvement, but gives no details.
Austria’s bilateral talks are probably an indication that the country is preparing for the implementation of a European Commission proposal issued in March in relation to new deportation rules under the Return Regulation.
Under this proposal, EU member states will be able to deport rejected asylum seekers to a third country with which they have signed a relevant agreement, even if the person concerned has no connection to that country.
In 2018 the commission warned against such a step, fearing that it risked violating the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the expulsion of people to countries where they would be at risk of torture, inhuman treatment or persecution.
Under pressure from numerous member states, a political paradigm shift has now taken place with regard to the “transit hub” plans.
The return rate for rejected asylum seekers across the EU currently stands at 20 percent, and the aim is to dramatically increase this from mid-2026.
Whether or not this is feasible, however, will depend on the national and European supreme courts. So far they have always blocked deportations of this kind.
Uganda currently hosts more refugees than any other African country: almost two million, mostly from South Sudan and Congo.
At the same time, the country is itself under authoritarian rule: in June, a law was passed allowing military trials of civilians; in May, more than a dozen journalists covering the elections there were assaulted by security forces.
Over the last 10 years, Austria has granted protection or residence permits on humanitarian grounds in 60 percent of all asylum decisions involving people from Uganda.
Other countries have already explored this model: the UK tried for years to outsource its asylum procedures to Rwanda – a project that failed both politically and legally and cost around €800m.
The current Labour government described the project as the biggest waste of taxpayers' money it had ever seen.
Italy has set up deportation centres in Albania, but numerous court rulings have limited the extent to which they can be used. The problems of high costs and multiple documented suicide attempts by inmates remain.
Human rights organisations and migration experts warn that such models pose significant risks, from rights violations to systematic abuse, and that it is often more efficient to invest in European asylum systems.
In September, more than 200 organisations, including Amnesty International, wrote an open letter denouncing the European Commission's plans for these reasons, arguing that they could effectively result in people being detained in camps outside of public control.
The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights insists that such hubs must not be “legal vacuums” and must be subject to strict, independent monitoring mechanisms.
However, both the Austrian internal government paper and the EU draft leave questions unanswered in this regard. It is clear from the paper that the government is already anticipating awkward questions: it states that the facilities must be “open” and that the partner country must commit to human rights standards.
Neither the ministry of the Interior, the chancellery nor the ministry of foreign affairs have revealed how much the government is willing to spend on these plans.
The government’s current cost-cutting programme is likely to delay implementation, according to Lukas Gahleitner-Gertz of Austrian NGO Asylkoordination.
It is clear from the paper, however, that Uganda would just be the start. It states that the transit centres are intended as a “pilot project” and that there will be more “innovative and mutually beneficial ideas” to follow.
This article was produced as part of the PULSE project, a European initiative to support cross-border journalistic collaborations. It was first published in der Standard.
Translated by Paula Kirby (Voxeurop)
Muzayen Al-Youssef, Laurin Lorenz and Irene Brickner from the Austrian online media der Standard, with the assistance of Giovanni Esperti (Il Sole 24 Ore)
Muzayen Al-Youssef, Laurin Lorenz and Irene Brickner from the Austrian online media der Standard, with the assistance of Giovanni Esperti (Il Sole 24 Ore)