The European Commission (EC) is at the center of a strong controversy after confirming the sending of a formal invitation to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to hold a “technical level” meeting in Brussels, the community capital. This meeting, coordinated together with the Swedish Ministry of Justice, aims to address the deportation and return of Afghan citizens whose asylum applications have been rejected or who represent a security threat.
The measure, backed by pressure from around twenty member states of the Schengen Area, represents the first known visit by representatives of the Islamist group to the capital of the European Union (EU) since its return to power, in 2021, after the resounding failure of Western forces – North American but also European – to consolidate a democratic state.
However, the initiative has sparked an intense political and ethical debate about the limits of European migration policy. Commission spokesperson Markus Lammert has defended the initiative, ensuring that these bilateral talks are framed within a mandate of “operational engagement” to facilitate contacts, monitor the situation and assist Member States.
Lammert stressed that the dialogue in no way implies “official recognition” of the Taliban’s de facto government. The proposed talks will focus strictly on practical logistical and bureaucratic aspects, such as verifying identities, issuing passports and travel documents, and coordinating deportation flights. This technical approach follows a first face-to-face contact between EU officials and the Taliban in Kabul.
Erosion of values
Despite the legal nuances put forward by Brussels, European analysts and legislators have categorically denounced the measure, arguing that the distinction between “technical commitment” and “recognition” is merely formal. Critics in the human rights community point out that, in practice, the EU is promoting an insidious “normalization” of the regime in exchange for a short-term solution on migration matters.
The unrest is especially visible in the European Parliament. Outraged MEPs have stated bluntly that those who commit crimes against humanity should not set foot on European soil without first going through the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. It is recalled that the ICC issued arrest warrants against Taliban leaders for the crime of gender-based persecution. The granting of exceptional visas by the EU for these meetings is seen by sectors of the parliamentary opposition as a direct contradiction to the bloc’s commitments, says for example the Renew group, that of centrist liberals.
Lawmakers such as German MEP Hannah Neumann of the Greens have warned that each coordinated return “strengthens the power of the Taliban and helps legitimize the group on the international stage.” His co-religionist Melissa Camara, French, has already warned the Commission “not to cross this red line”, stating that hosting Taliban officials in Brussels would be equivalent to “abandoning the values and rights on which the EU is founded.” The alarm also extends to the growing influence of the regime abroad, with reports that Taliban officials already control Afghan consulates in countries like Germany “as if it were the most normal thing in the world.”
For human rights defenders and refugees, this negotiation constitutes an undermining of the fundamental principles of protection, dignity and freedom that underpin the European asylum system. Various voices warn that the bloc risks its credibility and violates its own binding obligations embodied in the EU Charter, which explicitly prohibits torture and enshrines the principle of non-refoulement (non-refoulement).
“This is a serious mistake. At best, Brussels gives in to petty political pressures; at worst, it normalizes a regime of gender apartheid and terror, a complete change from a short-term solution to migration that is achieved at the expense of fundamental values and long-term security,” writes analyst Shagofah Ghafori for the Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in a harsh forum published by the think tank.
“Afghanistan under the Taliban regime is the very definition of a country that violates women’s rights. UN experts today describe Afghanistan as ‘the most serious women’s rights crisis in the world’. There is a term to describe what the Taliban regime that oppresses women means, and it is not a cultural difference or a religious interpretation,” she recalls.
So far, the Taliban have not officially confirmed or denied their participation in the Brussels meeting, nor have they responded publicly to the political storm generated in Europe. What makes this tactic truly counterproductive is that it serves the interests of the Taliban, not those of Europe, warn analysts, who understand that radicals see these talks on migration as a path to legitimacy, not cooperation. Meanwhile, the bloc faces the dilemma of prioritizing its electoral and immigration emergencies or keeping intact the founding values that define its foreign policy.
“Under international law, the EU is bound by the principle of non-refoulement; in short, no one can be returned to a place where they will suffer persecution or torture (article 3 of the European Court of Human Rights, article 33 of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights),” recalls Ghafori, a refugee herself.
And, furthermore, there are other paths: “The EU has better options. It should expand legal avenues, that is, more resettlement places, family reunification programs and humanitarian visas. Brussels should save and promote the ICP process, which has already charged senior Taliban officials with crimes against humanity. And, above all, the EU must respect the principle of non-refoulement,” he concludes.
