Afghanistan: a new 2015 for Europe?
- Nadia Dalla Gasperina
- 24 ago 2021
- Tempo di lettura: 6 min
Aggiornamento: 15 set 2024
We all know what is going on in Afghanistan: after a failed project of fight to terrorism and of stabilization of the country, which could be commented for hours, the US withdrew its forces and the Talibans took over a great part of the state in the matter of a few days. The national army refusing to fight back and the President fleeing the country just as things started to look bad contributed to the Taliban’s success. Now, on one side, resistance fighters are emerging across Afghanistan and especially in the few areas that are contested and not completely taken over by the new regime; on the other side, the West is watching with increasing concern the evolution of the situation.
People are losing the little freedom and rights they acquired during the 20 years of US and international efforts to change the country. They do not feel safe anymore; women cannot perform certain jobs or work at all, study, and have to undergo very strict procedures in their daily life. Talibans are looking for spouses among those who are not married, even if they are young girls. Human right activists, journalists, protesters, and collaborators with foreign countries are at risk of being tortured and killed.
As everyone is looking to save its ambassadors and diplomats that were working in Afghanistan until just a few days ago through air corridors, it comes at no surprise that the civilian population wants to escape such an unstable country as well. The West has not only the responsibility of having contributed to a lengthy war, but must also uphold its values of human rights, freedom, and international cooperation. However, it has become clear that a new wave of migration, especially into Europe through Iran, Turkey, and the Balkans, is feared: despite the EU and most of its states’ leaders calling for the creation of humanitarian corridors to receive refugees, other countries such as Turkey and Greece seek to obstacle people coming by building walls. Those that are traditionally against welcoming migrants like Hungary, Poland, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Croatia, and Belgium maintain a mixed approach: although they stopped returning Afghan refugees back to their home country, they are not always willing to receive migrants, especially if set by a quota system at EU level. Particularly concerning is the statement of Austria that did not agree with the decision of suspending deportations and proposed the creation of deportation centers in neighbouring countries as an alternative; still, the return of one Afghan refugee that failed to get asylum was stopped, or at least delayed until the end of the month, by the Austrian Constitutional Court upon request of the ECHR. On a positive note, Denmark set a precedent in the EU as for taking in those that cooperated with the country. Hungary and Bulgaria initially failed to sign a joint statement of 60 countries calling for the facilitation of foreign nationals and Afghans that wish to leave the country (now the two countries also appear of the signatories’ list); while Bulgaria seems finally ready to take in refugees, Hungary still refuses to “make its citizens pay for the mistakes made by the US” and is rescuing only its own nationals and collaborators such as interpreters and translators. The Czech Republic also maintained a hard line, stating that it will not cease deportations to Afghanistan, rather it will examine each asylum request individually as it has always done; at the same time, however, it is evacuating its diplomatic personnel and collaborators.
So what should the European Union do? The fear of a new 2015 divides the countries in the strategy that they are willing to follow, which underlines the absence of a common system despite years of trying to create one. Being on the same page as far as the refugees and asylum seekers questions goes is useful not only in matters of internal coordination and to make the EU a stronger community, but also for the Union to (re)establish the normative power that it has lost in the eyes of Eurosceptic countries and of those States that are set to join the EU in the future. Strong, communal action would also constitute a means of soft power towards Belarus, Turkey, and those countries that are always ready to use the migrant question to their advantage in the negotiations with the EU.
Afghan asylum seekers are in fact considering not only the Balkan route as a viable escape option, but also other paths such as going through Ukraine and Belarus. In this respect, Lukashenko appears to be instrumentalizing migrants to create pressure against the neighbouring European States such as Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania. There are reports of Afghan people being held at the border or forcibly pushed by Belarusian guards into the EU; Poland has requested help after a camp was established at the border, and is sending troops to halt the arrival of migrants as well as planning to build a barbed wire fence just like Lithuania did. For these countries in particular migration is not only a question of human rights, but also a political statement from their leading parties. Poland and Lithuania have gone as far as calling the actions taken by Belarus as “hybrid war”, highlighting the preoccupation around it and the need for firm measures: not only at EU level, but also the UN should be concerned. Turkey likes to dig into the shameful past of the EU in regard to migration by reminding that it will not be the saviour of the situation this time and while it strengthens its border with neighbouring Iran, it calls Europe to act preemptively. Turkey is already hosting more than 3.5 million refugees from Syria so that it is easy to feed the State’s anti-immigration rhetoric. Although the country shares some cultural ties with Afghan people, such as religion and, to an extent, a similar lifestyle, and is also used to hosting migrants from the Middle East, it does not have the necessary structures or policies to guarantee a dignified and fulfilling life to refugees that are often relegated into camps.
On the other hand, some Balkan countries said they were ready to welcome Afghan migrants in the name of their alliance and friendship with the United States. Albania, Kosovo, and North Macedonia, all countries of emigration themselves both for war and economic reasons, will provide temporary shelter to refugees; this is most likely done not so much because of their charitable spirit, but to strengthen relations with the US by helping it during a challenging time, and to get some return. The US has been a constant presence in the region since the Yugoslavian wars, and while it cannot represent an alternative to the EU, it is still considered as a major partner in all the spheres of public administration. Refugees would come to the Balkans via flights coordinated by the US itself. This is an excellent moment for the three countries to show their support for democracy, but also to demonstrate their organizational capabilities in the way they swiftly reacted to the Afghan crisis, and possibly to suggest to the EU that they would be reliable elements even during complicated situations.
The European Union can only predict what could happen in the upcoming weeks as far as the refugee situation is concerned; nothing is established yet, and it may turn out less preoccupying than it seems if the number of asylum seekers remains contained. However, the fact that the prospect of a new crisis sparks such violent responses on the part of its Member States only shows how desperately the EU needs a clear path to follow which must be built at an international level in the Parliament, Council, and Commission. If the EU does not want to fall into the liberal paradox it must designate precise rules and a shared immigration and asylum scheme; moreover, its institutions are failing to promote normative power to the more reluctant and conservative States, as well as to outside countries such as Turkey, which may result in a policy of compromises like it was in 2016. It seems clear that while preserving human life and helping people in need is a clear value of the European Union, upheld in many speeches by its leader, practice is not always so immediate: for now, the returns of asylum seekers so Afghanistan are suspended, but the Joint Declaration on Migration Cooperation between Afghanistan and the EU remains active; moreover, the general climate of preoccupation shows how in fact refugees keep being treated as a problem rather than an opportunity. This is the best occasion for the EU to come off as a strong leader in migration policy, to be set as an example for a shifting narrative on how refugees are perceived. However, it must act fast and rationally, but the question remains of whether the central institutions have enough power to coordinate action overriding the decisions by single Member States.
Sources: