The recent takeover by the Taliban in Afghanistan prompted one of the largest and most complex logistical operations in modern memory.

The airport in Kabul became a gathering place for Afghans and foreign nationals seeking a route to safety, and over 123,000 civilians were evacuated before coalition forces withdrew. Despite this, the International Rescue Committee has reported that there are still 18.4 million Afghans in need of humanitarian aid in Afghanistan, with a further 300,000 in serious danger because of the work they carried out with coalition forces during the most recent war.

Due to the global withdrawal of humanitarian aid money and the hold on foreign assets, the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan is likely to deteriorate further, with many more civilians searching for ways in which they can flee the country. Though some nations have recognised this challenge and are committed to providing refuge to some of those fleeing, the response of others has been deeply troubling and has highlighted a major flaw in the 1951 Refugee Convention.

HOSTILITY FROM STATES

Greece and Turkey have responded to the Afghan Crisis by building and reinforcing border walls to limit the flow of asylum seekers. Both countries witnessed a massive influx of refugees following the so-called Syrian Refugee Crisis of 2015. Greece welcomed over a million Syrian refugees at its peak, while Turkey continues to host 3.6 million Syrian refugees today. This has caused significant financial strain for both countries and exacerbated existing problems such as unemployment and the rising cost of living.

In order to avoid a deepening of these impacts following the Afghan Crisis, Greece has now completed a 40km stretch of their border wall and Turkey has reinforced its current border wall with plans to build another 64km before the end of the year. These actions represent a drastic avoidance of the processing of asylum seekers, but arguably, they should come as no surprise. Greece and Turkey have repeatedly called for a more equitable approach to global responses to mass migration flows, and with little support being provided by other nations, they have resorted to draconian measures.

The Refugee Convention remains silent on the equitable sharing of receipt of asylum seekers, and only stipulates that signatories should not penalise individuals who have come directly to the country to seek asylum. However, countries that are less accessible to asylum seekers, particularly island nations such as the United Kingdom and Australia, can avoid taking in a proportionate number of asylum seekers, and countries near conflict zones are often stretched and unable to adequately support an influx of asylum seekers. This will be particularly true for the countries bordering Afghanistan, as it seems unlikely that many Afghan citizens will be able to flee by air due to the Taliban’s control of the nation's airports.

The government of the United Kingdom has sought to further avoid responsibility in response to the increasing numbers of asylum seekers crossing the British Channel from France by changing existing rules to allow the refusal of claims made by individuals who have been through a “safe third country”. This notion stipulates that an individual should claim asylum at the first safe country they arrive in, rather than moving through countries that have been deemed safe in order to reach a desired destination.

LOOKING FORWARD

Ultimately, the lack of equitable sharing of receipt of asylum seekers and further action by nations to avoid responsibility has created a perfect storm, and countries that have traditionally welcomed large numbers of asylum seekers are adopting a more hard-line approach. The cost of this will be left to bear by the world’s poorest who are unable to fly directly to safety, both in the case of the Afghan Crisis and more generally.

Without global or regional consensus on the fair processing of asylum seekers, the situation is only likely to become more dangerous for those fleeing persecution. It is foreseeable that the hardening of migration policies by countries such as Greece and Turkey could intensify humanitarian crises around the world to such an extent that a global reform of the 1951 Refugee Convention comes under consideration. Whether nations would seriously engage in such a conversation remains unclear. What is certain is that those in danger will continue to flee in any way that they can.