[ad_1]
For Europe, unlike the United States, which is connected to Afghanistan by land, the return of the Taliban poses more tangible threats: not just terrorism, but also mass migration and heroin trafficking. Without diplomatic relations with Afghanistan, European governments will now have a limited choice of means to influence the Islamic militant group.
The concerns are evident: The initial conclusions of Tuesday’s meeting of European Home Affairs ministers, as seen by Bloomberg, urge the 27-nation bloc to use all possible means to help countries closest to Afghanistan provide give refugees a “sustainable livelihood” and prevent migration from the region; strengthen border management forces and stop the smuggling and trafficking of migrants. “
Nearly 2.5 million Afghan refugees are currently registered worldwide, fewer than Syrians, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Europe and Britain’s reliance on the United States for their immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan “reveals major gaps in the European and British security infrastructure for self-crisis management,” said Karin von Hippel, managing director of the Royal United Services Institute, an expert defense based in London. group. and a former US State Department official.
While the European Union recognizes the need to invest more effectively in defense and to develop a more strategic approach to foreign policy, its ability to defend its interests on its own has been eroded by the Brexit and Covid-19 pandemics. said von Hippel. four years of short presidency, they were actually working on Plan B. “
safe area
Europe’s vulnerability was clearly demonstrated on Sunday in French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for a United Nations-controlled safe zone in Kabul. This zone should help visa-free Afghans who do not want to obey the Taliban to leave the country safely and in an orderly manner.
His idea was rejected the same day.
With the Taliban’s immediate rejection of Macron’s plan to establish a safe zone, there was little international enthusiasm to defend it. In any case, such efforts have an ambiguous result, recalling the 1995 massacre of more than 8,000 Bosnian men and boys in an international safe zone in Srebrenica, Bosnia, or in 1983; an attack on the headquarters of a peacekeeping company in Lebanon, during which nearly 300 American and French soldiers were killed.
According to Francois Heisburg, a former diplomat and security adviser to the French government, Hamid Karzai International Airport would be virtually impossible to protect from attacks because it is large, located in the suburbs and only 7 kilometers from the Presidential Palace in the city center.
“You know how things start and, sadly, how they usually end,” said Heisbourg, special consultant for the Strategic Research Foundation currently based in Paris.
The joint resolution of the United States, France and the United Kingdom adopted by the UN Security Council on Monday night does not mention any safe zones, but calls on Taliban fighters bombarded by the western army for two decades to allow the security of civilians in Kabul. airport, free travel and respect for human rights.
The UN resolution highlighted the louder voice of other governments in the Afghanistan region now that the United States and other Western troops have withdrawn, as well as Europe’s growing dependence on them. The Security Council vote on Monday was just the first concrete sign of how this will happen, Heisburg says.
Despite French efforts, China and Russia abstained even on the relaxed version of the resolution. It was still accepted, but China has publicly expressed skepticism about establishing safe zones.
“I have noted the relevant reports.” I have noted that there are reports that the Afghan Taliban have rejected such an offer, “Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told reporters on Monday.
Europe’s concern about refugee risk will only grow, along with disputes among EU members over how many refugees to host and where to put them.
The number of people who left during the current crisis is more or less under control, and those who have collaborated with the allied forces are understanding: in the UK and elsewhere, evacuees have been greeted with great warmth.
But the situation in Afghanistan could lead to a “biblical” humanitarian crisis, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell told Spanish radio Onda Cero.
Meanwhile, Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn has attacked Austria and Slovenia, accusing them of rejecting European values for refusing to accept Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
European concerns about immigration are fueled by fears that the growing instability in Afghanistan could be reproduced in 2015, when more than 1 million Syrian refugees arrived in Europe in a matter of months. This encouraged the anti-immigrant parties and exposed the bloc’s confusion in responding to such an influx.
At that time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel signed a cash agreement with Turkey on border controls, which required the Turks to stop the flow of refugees in exchange for 3 billion euros.
The agreement was controversial because the Turkish government has not made a positive contribution to human rights. This problem would be exacerbated in any negotiations with the radical Islamist Taliban.
Unfortunately, Europe has practically no other means. When Internal Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson spoke of the EU’s “intervention” in Afghanistan to prevent a new influx of refugees seeking a better life in Europe, she also made it clear that intervention means money.
The Taliban have already called for international aid to subsidize farm income to compensate poppy growers, who are believed to supply more than 90 percent. Heroin sold in Europe.
[ad_2]
