The response to Pakistani and Afghan refugees is a litmus test for Europe’s commitment to its foundational values of compassion and justice.
The plight of Pakistanis and Afghans seeking refuge in Europe highlights a complex and urgent issue that tests the continent’s values and policies. Over the past decade, conflicts, economic instability and persecution have driven thousands from these countries, with many facing perilous journeys to Europe in search of safety and opportunity.
THE CRISIS
The refugee crisis involving Pakistanis and Afghans is driven by multiple factors. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), conflicts, both before and after the Taliban’s resurgence in Afghanistan and the ongoing violence in Pakistan’s regions, have led to an increase in displacement. By mid-2021, there were approximately 2.2 million Afghan refugees worldwide, many of whom sought asylum in Europe. Economic instability and human rights abuses, particularly against vulnerable populations, further exacerbate the situation, pushing individuals to undertake dangerous journeys across land and sea.
DIVERGENT RESPONSES
European nations always exhibit contrasting responses to the influx of refugees. European responses to the Pakistani and Afghan refugees too have varied widely, reflecting a spectrum of approaches and attitudes.
Countries like Germany and Sweden initially embraced a welcoming stance, offering asylum and integrating refugees into their societies. Germany, for example, welcomed over a million refugees in 2015 alone, implementing policies aimed at integration, such as language classes and job training programs. Sweden similarly adopted an open-door policy, leading to a substantial increase in its refugee population. This approach was grounded in humanitarian principles and a recognition of Europe’s own history of displacement.
However, the surge in numbers strained public services and resources, sparking political backlash. As a result, some countries began tightening their borders, showcasing the tension between humanitarian ideals and practical realities.
HARDLINE POLICIES
Conversely, other European countries have adopted more restrictive policies. Nations such as Hungary and Poland have pursued hardline measures, including stringent border controls and limited asylum options.
For example, Hungary’s government, led by Viktor Orbán, has fortified its borders with fences and deployed military forces to deter migrants. According to the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Hungary received only 29,000 asylum applications in 2020, a sharp decrease from previous years.
These hardline policies often reflect national security concerns as well as fears of cultural dilution and economic impact. These approaches neglect the humanitarian responsibilities outlined in international agreements and exacerbate the suffering of those in need. Indeed, these countries are violating international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
POLICY IMPACT
The European Union has attempted to address the crisis through a combination of internal policies and external agreements. The EU’s Dublin Regulation requires refugees to apply for asylum in the first EU country they enter, placing the responsibility for asylum seekers on the first country of entry.
This has placed disproportionate pressure on the frontline states like Greece and Italy, which are overwhelmed by arrivals. In 2020, Greece reported over 100,000 new asylum applications, further stressing its already strained resources. Efforts to redistribute refugees across EU member states have faced significant resistance, highlighting the challenges of achieving solidarity within the Union.
EU-TURKEY DEAL
The EU-Turkey deal of March 2016 aimed to reduce irregular migration by allowing Turkey to return migrants in exchange for financial aid and concessions on visa requirements for Turkish citizens. This deal initially decreased the number of arrivals by sea.
However, this arrangement has been criticized for its ethical implications and the treatment of refugees in Turkey, where many are housed in overcrowded and under-resourced camps. Reports from human rights organizations have highlighted issues such as inadequate living conditions and limited access to services, raising ethical concerns about the EU’s reliance on external partners to manage migration.
NATIONAL INTERESTS AND HUMANITARIAN OBLIGATIONS
As European countries grapple with these challenges, it is crucial to balance national interests with humanitarian obligations. Research from think tanks like the Migration Policy Institute suggests that fostering greater cooperation among EU member states, enhancing support for frontline countries and establishing legal pathways for migration could lead to more sustainable solutions. In 2022, over 80% of EU citizens expressed support for a more coordinated approach to asylum, indicating a public desire for a balance between compassion and practicality.
The ultimate goal should be to uphold human dignity while addressing the legitimate concerns of host nations.
A TEST OF EUROPE’S FOUNDATIONAL VALUES
The response to Pakistani and Afghan refugees is a litmus test for Europe’s commitment to its foundational values. The response serves as a critical test of Europe’s commitment to compassion, justice and human rights.
The ongoing debate surrounding asylum policies reflects broader societal attitudes toward migration. Data from Eurobarometer surveys show a growing divide in public opinion, with some citizens advocating for humane treatment and integration, while others prioritize security and national identity.
This complex landscape challenges Europe to uphold its foundational principles while navigating the realities of a changing geopolitical environment. By fostering dialogue and adopting equitable policies, Europe can reaffirm its commitment to human dignity amidst crises.
Bahauddin Foizee is an analyst & columnist focusing on the assessment of threat/risk associated with business, economy and investment as well as legal, security, political and geopolitical threat/risk. His articles on these areas as well as on social, environmental, financial and military affairs in the Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific and Middle East regions have been widely published.
OpEd Column Syndication 