Afghanistan

Belgium has issued five visas to a Taliban delegation to attend a European Union meeting on migration in Brussels and discuss the deportation of Afghan asylum seekers from European nations.

The meeting, expected to take place on Tuesday, will be the first time the EU has hosted the group since it returned to power in Afghanistan almost five years ago.

A spokesperson from the Belgian Foreign Ministry told reporters that the five visas were granted on Monday after a security assessment and that they are valid for Belgium for one day only.

The European Commission said it has invited the Taliban officials for discussions on irregular migration from Afghanistan to the 27-member bloc, and to also discuss the deportation of Afghan people in the EU who have had their asylum applications rejected.

The EU has not identified which Taliban representatives were invited to the meeting. Several senior Taliban leaders are also under EU sanctions.

“Member States are looking into ways to return persons who have committed serious crimes and who are possibly a security threat. So this is the initiative that the Commission is now following up on,” Commission spokesman Markus Lammert told the EU’s daily news briefing on Monday.

According to a letter seen by the Reuters news agency and addressed to Abdul Qahar Balkhi, a Taliban Foreign Ministry spokesman, the meeting will focus on “the return and readmission of Afghan nationals without a right to stay in the European Union”.

The Commission, however, emphasised that this meeting does not mean Brussels is formally recognising the Taliban.

Since returning to power in August 2021, the Taliban have steadily curtailed rights, restricting women’s freedom of movement, banning girls from education beyond primary school, and enforcing morality laws that limit free expression and access to employment. European governments also shut their embassies in Kabul when the Taliban authorities returned to power.

Rights organisations have asked the Commission to abandon its plans to talk with the Taliban.

“Any engagement with the Taliban needs to prioritise protecting human rights and accountability – not deporting people to danger there,” Fereshta Abbasi, Afghanistan researcher at Human Rights Watch, said.

Earlier this month, the EU’s migration chief Magnus Brunner defended the outreach, saying Brussels had no other option than to talk to the Taliban government about returning Afghan asylum seekers who had entered the 27-member bloc irregularly.

European governments have sought a tougher stance on migration as public opinion has hardened, spurring far-right electoral gains across the continent.

EU countries have received about a million asylum applications filed by Afghans between 2013 and 2024, according to the bloc’s migration agency.

Although Afghans are among the nationalities with the highest asylum recognition rates in the EU, overall acceptance has tightened as migration ⁠policies become more restrictive.

About 20 of the EU’s 27 member states expressed interest in returning numbers of migrants without a right to stay, particularly those with criminal convictions, to Afghanistan in a letter last year.

EU law allows for deportations of people convicted of serious crimes or ⁠deemed security threats in certain cases, but returns to Afghanistan have been limited due to the lack of diplomatic relations.

“The focus for member states is very much on persons who have committed serious crimes or who pose a security threat,” Commission spokesman Lammert told journalists Monday.

Afghanistan is, however, currently mired in a deep humanitarian crisis. According to the United Nations World Food Programme, more than 17 million Afghans – or one-third of the population – are “food insecure”, while the country is absorbing tens of thousands of people returning from Iran and Pakistan.

“The desperate scenes of people – including EU staff – fleeing Afghanistan are a recent memory,” Eve Geddie, director of Amnesty International’s European Institutions Office, said in a statement.

“It is unconscionable that the EU would now try and deport people to Afghanistan, which has only become more dangerous in the meantime,” she added.

No group has yet claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Two roadside bomb blasts in northwestern Pakistan have killed at least seven people.

The first explosion on Saturday hit a vehicle, and the second was detonated as rescuers responded, police said.

“A private pick-up truck carrying passengers was targeted with a remote-controlled IED,” said Yasir Afridi, a police officer in Bannu district in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province bordering Afghanistan, using a common acronym for a homemade bomb.

“The injured were being transported to hospital in a car for emergency treatment when a second IED exploded,” he said, adding that three people were wounded.

Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif condemned the attack and said the government would bring those responsible to justice.

There has been no claim of responsibility for the blast, but the Pakistan Taliban, known by the acronym TTP, and other armed groups operate in the area.

Pakistan has blamed Afghanistan for a surge in attacks near the border, although the Taliban government in Kabul has repeatedly denied Pakistani accusations that Afghan territory is used as a sanctuary for armed groups.

Frosty relations have escalated into clashes in recent months, including Pakistani air strikes on Afghan cities.

Pakistani air strikes near the border this month killed at least 26 Taliban fighters, the Pakistani government said, while the Afghan government said 12 civilians were killed.

The border has remained largely closed since violence escalated in October, freezing bilateral trade and disrupting the movement of people and goods.

In April, I accompanied a friend on a visit to villages in Daikundi province, central Afghanistan. The purpose of the trip was to speak to farmer beneficiaries of a project that an NGO operating in the agriculture sector had carried out and to follow up on its impact. The week I spent travelling with him was quite eye-opening regarding the state of the non-profit sector in the country.

The project in question provided zero-energy storage houses to preserve harvests, such as fruit and vegetables, in rural areas. On the surface, the idea was promising: provide farmers with storage space so they could sell their produce over a few months.

However, the farmers we spoke to in several villages showed us heaps of apples decaying beneath the trees. They complained that the storage houses had space for the apples of only two to three families in the entire village.

In another village, we saw frustration with another project from a different NGO. That organisation had bought imported seeds for various vegetables and distributed them among farmers. Staff members provided training, conducted weeks of workshops on cultivation methods and techniques, and regularly monitored the crops.

The local participants invested significant time, energy, land, and water in the project. But the harvest they got from these imported seeds was very little and of poor quality. Despite the enormous amount of money spent by the NGO on surveying, training, logistics, transportation, and staff salaries, the vegetables for each family amounted to about 450 Afghans (roughly $7). There was no accountability for the farmers’ losses.

Such stories are common across rural communities in Afghanistan. While aid organisations publish reports of their achievements, many beneficiaries gain little from poorly designed projects that fail to address the real challenges they face. The cost of these projects is extremely high, but the output is often too little.

Since the Taliban took over Kabul and the US-led coalition withdrew from the country, humanitarian aid and funding in Afghanistan have dramatically collapsed. The struggle to secure funds, however, has not led to better efficiency, accountability, and transparency among the NGOs still operating in Afghanistan.

This is not a recent phenomenon. Between 2001 and 2021, Afghanistan became the poster child for corruption, embezzlement, and waste of foreign aid. One US journalist described it as “the $148 bn failure”.

According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), set up by the United States to investigate fraud with US funds, between $26bn and $29bn was lost due to embezzlement or wasteful spending. This was just funding provided by the US government; there is no estimate for how much was wasted from other donors.

While much of the foreign funds went to the security sector, a significant amount went to the non-profit sphere, where waste was also widespread. Millions, if not billions, worth of projects became a missed opportunity to improve the lives of Afghans, especially in rural areas. This is a legacy that persists to this day.

This situation is not unique to Afghanistan. The development sector across the world is known for waste and inefficiency. In the Afghan context, that is exacerbated by the lack of control and difficulty of ground work.

Many foreign NGOs do not directly implement their projects; instead, they work through implementing partners (IPs), which themselves outsource implementation to subcontractors. This extended chain of actors means that often there is a lack of proper quality control and supervision, and there is motivation to carry out lower-quality work in order to increase profit.

Furthermore, the primary concern of IPs is securing funding. So they often present project proposals that look great on paper but do not necessarily have a substantial impact on the circumstances of the local population or address their most urgent needs.

Finally, there is a lot of waste in remuneration, especially when it comes to international staff. Foreign employees often have salaries as high as $10,000–20,000 for doing work that a local hire can do for much less.

It is clear that amid global cuts to donor funding, the development sector is struggling. This should be a moment of change. In Afghanistan, where the need of the local population is enormous while available financing is shrinking, NGOs can take this change into their own hands.

The simplest first step NGOs can take is to employ qualified locals to plan and lead projects. They would know the local culture, realities, and actual needs of communities, as well as market prices and field conditions. They can help not only optimise project costs but also ensure that they actually have a real, measurable impact.

In addition, NGOs should avoid having an extended chain of IPs and subcontractors. They should also regularly collect feedback from local communities and field workers directly in order to evaluate project effectiveness during implementation in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Projects are more likely to produce sustainable results if NGOs invest in addressing pressing nationwide challenges, such as unemployment, infrastructure, and market access.

Improving efficiency and effectiveness would not only ensure Afghan beneficiaries get better services and help, but it would also make organisations more competitive for the dwindling pool of funding. This is the only way to salvage the NGO sector not only in Afghanistan but in the rest of the world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

At least 22 people have been killed and 36 others injured when a truck carrying recently returned Afghan refugees overturned in eastern Afghanistan’s Laghman Province.

Officials say the driver lost control of the vehicle and authorities have launched an investigation.

Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have been tense since the Taliban took power in 2021.

On Monday, Pakistan summoned a senior Afghan diplomat after an attack claimed by the Pakistan Taliban, known by the acronym TPP. The group said it carried out two more attacks since, mostly against security forces.

Islamabad accuses Kabul of backing the fighters, which it denies.

The latest violence started with a major border skirmish in February. Mediation efforts by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkiye and China led to a pause in the fighting.

But the two sides have continued to target each other. This includes a Pakistani strike on a drug rehabilitation centre that killed more than 250 people.

Will these breaches lead to a resumption of hostilities? And is lasting peace possible between the neighbours?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Masood Khan – Former permanent representative of Pakistan, United Nations

Michael Kugelman – Senior fellow, Atlantic Council

Obaidullah Baheer – Adjunct lecturer, American University of Afghanistan

Tens of thousands of Afghans have been displaced by recent fighting along the Pakistan border, forced into tents with little access to food, healthcare, or education. Pakistan says its strikes target armed groups attacking its territory, but displaced families now fear for their safety and are uncertain if they will ever return home.

IT WAS HARDLY A SURPRISE that President Bush made a brief stop in Afghanistan on Wednesday, and not just because word of the “unexpected” trip leaked to the media beforehand. With Iraq ever more messy and his administration on the defensive on multiple fronts, Bush undoubtedly wanted to evoke that sweet moment of victory in November 2001 when U.S. forces ended the Taliban’s rule.

Yet Afghanistan is not such a simple story. Democratic elections brought a reasonable government into office, but it remains weak and ineffective outside of Kabul. Over the last year, the Taliban has made a strong revival, drug trafficking is up and the number of suicide bombings has steadily climbed. Bush’s advisors said his visit was so brief because it was hard to guarantee security.

Back in Washington, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Michael Maples, testified before Congress on Tuesday that attacks by Taliban and other insurgents increased by 20% last year, and they are expected to intensify this spring. Aid workers report that villagers across the south of Afghanistan tell them not to visit anymore because Taliban forces punish anyone who accepts Western help.

Lest anyone forget, the Taliban was target No. 2 in the U.S. war against terrorists provoked by the 9/11 attacks. Target No. 1 was Osama bin Laden — Bush wanted him “dead or alive” — and he is still at large. Bush promised in Afghanistan that the leader of Al Qaeda would eventually be brought to justice. At this point, we are not holding our collective breath. Bin Laden is believed to be hiding in the mountainous region straddling Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan, spooning out taped messages to the West, but there has been little sign of progress in the hunt for him.

Like too many administration projects, the situation in Afghanistan appears to be the victim of a lack of follow-through. After the invasion of 2001, Bush promised to rebuild Afghanistan, ravaged by years of civil war and horrific destruction at the hands of the Taliban. There are 18,000 soldiers in the country, and in 2004 the United States and other donors pledged or spent $3.6 billion on humanitarian aid and reconstruction.

Yet once the war in Iraq was launched, Washington’s attention went there, as did most of its troops. The political will to bring security and basic services to Afghanistan clearly fizzled. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld likes to argue that the United States is capable of fighting two wars at once, but the evidence from Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that it may not be capable of fighting two wars well.

The United States is not the first world power to stumble in Afghanistan. The British and the Russians each failed to subdue the warlords who roamed the nation’s treacherous terrain. Yet the U.S. efforts that began there with great promise in 2001 remain, as yet, unfulfilled.