The public statement issued by Amnesty International regarding the repatriation of Afghan nationals from Pakistan highlights a fundamental clash between universal human rights advocacy and Westphalian state sovereignty. Amnesty’s position, which calls for an immediate halt to the return of undocumented migrants, frames the situation through a lens of international norms and humanitarian protection. However, a deeper analysis of the underlying geopolitical and legal realities reveals a different set of priorities centered on the restoration of immigration control and the limits of long-term hospitality.
Amnesty International’s primary argument rests on the principle of non-refoulement, the international legal obligation that forbids a country from returning individuals to a place where they face a high risk of persecution or torture. Amnesty contends that given the Taliban’s track record, particularly regarding gender-based persecution and extrajudicial reprisals, any return is forcible rather than voluntary. They view the expiration of legal documents not as a justification for removal, but as a failure of the host state to provide a sustainable protection framework.
In reality, the obligation of any state toward foreign nationals is fundamentally shaped by its legal commitments. Because Pakistan is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the hosting of millions of Afghans for over four decades has been an unprecedented humanitarian tradition rather than a binding legal requirement. This distinction is critical because it characterizes the extensions granted to Afghan nationals as discretionary acts of goodwill. This mirrors the temporary protection regime used by Turkey for Syrian refugees. Like Pakistan, Turkey provided vast support for years but consciously avoided granting full refugee status under the 1951 Convention to maintain sovereign flexibility. When the social, economic, and security impacts of hosting become unsustainable, the state reserves the right to reassert immigration control, much as any sovereign nation would.
While Amnesty highlights the normative dangers in Afghanistan, such as the exclusion of women from public life, the objective reality of the territory has shifted. The fundamental circumstances that originally justified mass migration—active war, foreign occupation, and a collapse of state authority—have largely changed. Today, a single regime exercises writ over the vast majority of the country. While political concerns remain, Afghanistan is no longer a conventional war zone. We see a similar tension in Denmark, where the government recently declared parts of Syria as safe for return. The Danish approach, like the logic of repatriation in South Asia, focuses on the absence of active combat as the threshold for safety. Once the primary cause of flight has ceased, no country can be expected to host millions of undocumented individuals indefinitely.
Furthermore, the linkage between mass undocumented migration and domestic security is a matter of state responsibility rather than scapegoating. Hosting millions with minimal international burden-sharing while facing internal terrorism and economic challenges creates a unique set of pressures. This securitization is a global trend. In Kenya, the government has frequently moved to close the Dadaab and Kakuma camps, citing concerns that they serve as breeding grounds for Al-Shabaab. The responsibility for these challenges must be correctly assigned. If the international community is concerned about human rights, it should provide development aid and livelihood support inside Afghanistan rather than outsourcing the burden to neighboring countries. In Lebanon, which hosts the highest number of refugees per capita, the state has similarly argued that the global community’s refusal to support reintegration within the country of origin is an infringement on the host nation’s stability.
Ultimately, hospitality cannot become a permanent substitute for state responsibility. The Afghan state, currently under the Taliban, must be urged to accept and reintegrate its own citizens. Repatriation, in this context, is a return to one’s own country rather than a forcible displacement from a place of permanent asylum. It aligns with home grown solutions often promoted in the Global South, where host nations demand that the country of origin create the conditions for its own people to thrive. The difference between Amnesty International and the reality of state policy is essentially a dispute over the definition of safety. While Amnesty advocates for an idealized, individual-centric safety, the state must prioritize regional stability and the dignity of an orderly, phased return, signaling that generosity cannot be mischaracterized as a permanent legal obligation.
Rethinking Afghan Repatriation from Pakistan
The public statement issued by Amnesty International regarding the repatriation of Afghan nationals from Pakistan highlights a fundamental clash between universal human rights advocacy and Westphalian state sovereignty. Amnesty’s position, which calls for an immediate halt to the return of undocumented migrants, frames the situation through a lens of international norms and humanitarian protection. However, a deeper analysis of the underlying geopolitical and legal realities reveals a different set of priorities centered on the restoration of immigration control and the limits of long-term hospitality.
Amnesty International’s primary argument rests on the principle of non-refoulement, the international legal obligation that forbids a country from returning individuals to a place where they face a high risk of persecution or torture. Amnesty contends that given the Taliban’s track record, particularly regarding gender-based persecution and extrajudicial reprisals, any return is forcible rather than voluntary. They view the expiration of legal documents not as a justification for removal, but as a failure of the host state to provide a sustainable protection framework.
In reality, the obligation of any state toward foreign nationals is fundamentally shaped by its legal commitments. Because Pakistan is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the hosting of millions of Afghans for over four decades has been an unprecedented humanitarian tradition rather than a binding legal requirement. This distinction is critical because it characterizes the extensions granted to Afghan nationals as discretionary acts of goodwill. This mirrors the temporary protection regime used by Turkey for Syrian refugees. Like Pakistan, Turkey provided vast support for years but consciously avoided granting full refugee status under the 1951 Convention to maintain sovereign flexibility. When the social, economic, and security impacts of hosting become unsustainable, the state reserves the right to reassert immigration control, much as any sovereign nation would.
While Amnesty highlights the normative dangers in Afghanistan, such as the exclusion of women from public life, the objective reality of the territory has shifted. The fundamental circumstances that originally justified mass migration—active war, foreign occupation, and a collapse of state authority—have largely changed. Today, a single regime exercises writ over the vast majority of the country. While political concerns remain, Afghanistan is no longer a conventional war zone. We see a similar tension in Denmark, where the government recently declared parts of Syria as safe for return. The Danish approach, like the logic of repatriation in South Asia, focuses on the absence of active combat as the threshold for safety. Once the primary cause of flight has ceased, no country can be expected to host millions of undocumented individuals indefinitely.
Furthermore, the linkage between mass undocumented migration and domestic security is a matter of state responsibility rather than scapegoating. Hosting millions with minimal international burden-sharing while facing internal terrorism and economic challenges creates a unique set of pressures. This securitization is a global trend. In Kenya, the government has frequently moved to close the Dadaab and Kakuma camps, citing concerns that they serve as breeding grounds for Al-Shabaab. The responsibility for these challenges must be correctly assigned. If the international community is concerned about human rights, it should provide development aid and livelihood support inside Afghanistan rather than outsourcing the burden to neighboring countries. In Lebanon, which hosts the highest number of refugees per capita, the state has similarly argued that the global community’s refusal to support reintegration within the country of origin is an infringement on the host nation’s stability.
Ultimately, hospitality cannot become a permanent substitute for state responsibility. The Afghan state, currently under the Taliban, must be urged to accept and reintegrate its own citizens. Repatriation, in this context, is a return to one’s own country rather than a forcible displacement from a place of permanent asylum. It aligns with home grown solutions often promoted in the Global South, where host nations demand that the country of origin create the conditions for its own people to thrive. The difference between Amnesty International and the reality of state policy is essentially a dispute over the definition of safety. While Amnesty advocates for an idealized, individual-centric safety, the state must prioritize regional stability and the dignity of an orderly, phased return, signaling that generosity cannot be mischaracterized as a permanent legal obligation.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
Rethinking Afghan Repatriation from Pakistan
Amnesty International’s call to halt Afghan repatriation overlooks the limits of long-term hospitality. For Pakistan, the issue is less about abandoning rights than reasserting sovereign immigration control amid shifting realities in Afghanistan.
Iran’s Current Crisis: Structural Pressures and Political Trajectories
Iran’s 2025–26 unrest reflects simultaneous pressure on economic stability, political legitimacy, and state coercive capacity, marking a critical juncture for the Islamic Republic.
The New Architecture of US–Pakistan Relations
Andy Halus’s interview signals a strategic shift in US–Pakistan relations from security-centric ties to a multidimensional partnership centered on minerals, education, and soft power. Projects like Reko Diq now stand as the key test of this new architecture.
ISKP, the Taliban, and TTP: Leadership, Recruitment, and Regional Security Dynamics in South Asia
ISKP Taliban TTP dynamics explain post-2021 militancy, leadership rivalries, recruitment shifts, and regional security risks in South Asia.
When Insurgents Become Governments: From Rebellion to Rule
This SAT X Space explored how insurgent groups shift from rebellion to rule, comparing the Taliban’s rigid governance in Afghanistan with Syria’s fragmented but evolving post-insurgent landscape, and assessing regional security implications.