Normalisation happens incrementally, through visas and meeting rooms
In Brussels, the European Union opened its doors to a Taliban delegation to negotiate the return of Afghan migrants — a meeting that placed the machinery of migration policy in direct tension with the principles of human rights law. Two of the Taliban figures involved carry International Criminal Court arrest warrants for crimes against humanity, yet the EU issued them visas and meeting rooms. What unfolded was not merely a diplomatic contradiction but a quiet renegotiation of where Europe's moral commitments end and its political anxieties begin — a reckoning that has been building since the Taliban's return to power in 2021 reshaped the lives of millions.
- The EU's decision to host Taliban representatives in Brussels — including figures under ICC arrest warrants — has drawn fierce condemnation from rights groups, Afghan civil society, and members of the European Parliament who see it as a betrayal of foundational principles.
- Evidence from Germany's deportation flights shows that returnees face arbitrary detention, torture, and in at least one documented case, death — making the policy not merely controversial but potentially complicit in serious harm.
- Eighty-three Afghan and international human rights organizations have signed an open letter warning that forced returns expose vulnerable people to persecution and severe deprivation, while the IRC's country director calls it a decision that could cost lives.
- EU officials frame the Taliban talks in narrow technocratic terms — targeting criminals and security risks — but investigators have already found that single Afghan men with no criminal record have been swept up in deportation flights.
- Analysts warn that the deeper consequence may be strategic as well as moral: deporting young Afghan men into poverty and hopelessness risks driving them toward Taliban networks, inadvertently reinforcing the authoritarian structures Europe claims to oppose.
On a Tuesday in June, the European Union prepared to welcome Taliban representatives to Brussels for talks on scaling up deportations of Afghan migrants — a meeting arranged quietly, with five single-day visas issued by the Belgian foreign ministry. The commission had been in dialogue with the Taliban since January on this question. But the arrangement carried a weight that technocratic framing could not contain: two of the Taliban figures involved are subject to ICC arrest warrants for crimes against humanity, specifically for the systematic persecution of women and girls. Since returning to power in 2021, the regime has banned girls from school beyond sixth grade and, in 2024, prohibited women from speaking or showing their faces in public.
The backlash was swift. Socialist MEP Juan Fernando López Aguilar called it "an absolute outrage and a total loss of faith and credibility," arguing that Europe's response to migration had been hijacked by far-right panic. Twenty EU member states had nonetheless called for concrete deportation pathways for Afghans without legal status or deemed security risks. The commission's position was that cooperation with the Taliban was necessary to remove those who posed a threat — but critics heard in that logic a surrender of principle to political expedience.
The human cost of that logic was already visible. Germany had deported over 100 people since August 2024. A UN report documented what awaited them: arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, and ill treatment. At least one returnee was later killed. With roughly 40 percent of Afghanistan's population facing hunger, the IRC's country director was unsparing: returning Afghans to such conditions is not migration policy — it is a decision that could cost lives.
Policy analyst Shagofah Ghafori cautioned that normalization need not arrive through formal recognition. It accumulates through visas, meeting rooms, and the quiet substitution of transaction for principle. The concern raised by refugee advocates was that deportations nominally targeting convicted criminals would inevitably expand — a trajectory already evidenced by German flights that swept up men who had broken no laws. German Green MEP Hannah Neumann framed the risk in strategic terms: young Afghan men returned to poverty and desperation would turn to the only structures offering shelter — Taliban networks and madrassas. Europe, she argued, risked not weakening the regime but feeding the dependency that sustains it.
On Tuesday, the European Union was set to welcome a Taliban delegation to Brussels for talks on a subject that sits at the intersection of two of Europe's most fraught policy challenges: migration control and complicity with an authoritarian regime. The Belgian foreign ministry had quietly issued five single-day visas to the Taliban representatives, a move that ignited immediate backlash from human rights campaigners, members of the European Parliament, and organizations tracking the fallout from deportations already underway.
The meeting itself was framed in technocratic terms: EU officials wanted to discuss how to scale up the deportation of Afghan migrants back to Taliban-controlled territory. The commission had been in talks with the Taliban since January on precisely this question. But the optics—and the substance—told a different story. Two of the Taliban leaders involved in these discussions are subject to arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court, accused of crimes against humanity for the systematic persecution of women and girls. The regime itself, since returning to power in 2021, has banned girls from school beyond the sixth grade and in 2024 prohibited women from speaking or showing their faces outside their homes. The EU had imposed sanctions on several Taliban-linked individuals. And yet here it was, issuing visas and opening meeting rooms.
The contradiction was not lost on Juan Fernando López Aguilar, a Socialist MEP who called the arrangement "an absolute outrage and a total loss of faith and credibility." He saw in it a capitulation to the far-right rhetoric around immigration that has reshaped European politics. "We're 450 million people," he said. "There's no reason to panic." But panic, or something like it, had taken hold. Twenty EU member states had called for concrete pathways to deport Afghans without legal residence permits or deemed security risks. The commission's rationale was that cooperation with the Taliban was necessary to return those who posed a threat to Europe. What López Aguilar heard instead was a surrender of principle to expedience.
The human stakes were staggering. Since 2021, hundreds of thousands of Afghans had fled to Europe. About 40 percent of Afghanistan's population now faces hunger, according to the International Rescue Committee. Women in particular were trapped in a country where systematic barriers blocked access to education, employment, and healthcare. A UN report from the previous year documented what happened to Afghans who were returned: arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, ill treatment. Germany had deported more than 100 people since August 2024, when a charter flight coordinated with Qatar carried 28 Afghan citizens back to Kabul. Once those planes landed, there was no credible oversight. Reports indicated that returnees were detained and interrogated. At least one was later killed.
Shagofah Ghafori, a policy analyst at the Brussels-based Centre for European Policy Studies, described what was happening as something more insidious than formal recognition of the Taliban. "Normalisation doesn't require a signed treaty," she wrote. "It happens incrementally, through granting visas, meeting rooms and the quiet replacement of principle with transaction." An open letter signed by 83 Afghan and international human rights groups warned that forced returns would expose many to persecution, violence, and severe deprivation of rights. Lisa Owen, the International Rescue Committee's Afghanistan country director, was blunt: "Deporting Afghans back to a country where almost half of the population cannot feed themselves is not a migration policy; it is a decision that could cost lives."
The deeper worry, articulated by Reshad Jalali of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, was that deportations of convicted criminals might be only the beginning. An investigative report by the German broadcaster ZDF had already found that deportations, while nominally targeting those convicted of crimes, had also swept up single Afghan men who had broken no laws. Once deportation was normalized and resumed between the EU and the Taliban de facto authorities, the path would widen. Hannah Neumann, a German Green MEP, saw in the policy a strategic miscalculation as well as a moral one. Every return was a gift to the Taliban, she argued. Young Afghan men sent back into poverty and hopelessness would become dependent on the only structures offering shelter and food: Taliban networks and madrassas. "This is how authoritarian systems hold power," she said. "Not only through violence, but through dependency, social control and enforced loyalty." By deporting people into desperation, Europe risked not weakening the Taliban but strengthening the very machinery that kept them in power.
Citações Notáveis
It's absolutely an outrage and a total loss of faith and credibility of the European Union that it can hold such a double standard.— Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Socialist MEP
Deporting Afghans back to a country where almost half of the population cannot feed themselves is not a migration policy; it is a decision that could cost lives.— Lisa Owen, International Rescue Committee Afghanistan country director
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would the EU risk this kind of backlash by hosting the Taliban at all? What's the actual pressure driving it?
Twenty member states demanded concrete pathways to deport Afghans. Migration has become politically toxic across Europe. The far right has made it a wedge issue, and mainstream governments feel they have to respond. The Taliban controls the territory where these people came from, so from a purely transactional standpoint, you need to talk to them.
But they're under ICC arrest warrants. How do you square that circle?
You don't, really. The EU says the meeting doesn't constitute recognition. But Ghafori's point is sharper—recognition isn't the danger. Normalization is. You grant visas, you open meeting rooms, you treat them as a counterparty in a negotiation. That's the slippery slope.
What happens to the people who get deported?
The UN documented it: arbitrary arrest, detention, torture, interrogation. At least one person from that August 2024 flight was killed. There's no oversight once the plane lands. Germany has already deported over 100 people. Austria has started. And the evidence suggests it's not just criminals—it's single men with no convictions.
So the EU knows this and is proceeding anyway?
Yes. With full knowledge. That's what makes Neumann's argument so damning. Every deportation strengthens the Taliban by creating dependency and desperation. You're not weakening an authoritarian regime by feeding it desperate people. You're feeding its machinery.
Is there any legal argument against this?
International law says you can't send people back to face persecution or torture. The UN report proves that's what's happening. The EU has an obligation to refrain from it. But the political will to enforce that obligation seems to have evaporated.