[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

USA

The United States has humanitarian and security interests in managing Afghan asylum seekers. Among the largest providers of humanitarian aid globally, the United States has sought to strengthen human rights norms worldwide. Given the conditions of instability, violence, and poverty that many Afghan migrants are fleeing, as well as the dangers faced on the journey, the United States has clear humanitarian incentives to craft a strategy to provide support and protection for migrants and ultimately ease the pressures driving migration.

The U.S. has had a tense relationship with Afghan actors since before 9/11. After the U.S. determined the Taliban supported Al Qaeda, they led an invasion of Afghanistan. The U.S. wanted to end its mission in Afghanistan and restore peace in the area after having military forces stationed there for nearly 20 years. The U.S. and Taliban signed a peace agreement in 2018. The Doha Agreement meant establishing peace and promised the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops from the country. The peace talks failed, but the army troops did withdraw from Afghanistan. This left a power vacuum, which the Taliban filled. The Doha agreement is perceived to be a failure. The deal prevented Taliban fighters from attacking U.S. forces. Still, they didn’t stop the Taliban from attacking Afghan troops, and they also required the release of many prisoners by the Afghan forces. The Taliban didn’t release many prisoners and just continued its war campaign. The Taliban eventually forced the Afghan government to seek refuge in

 

Potential policies:

A Restricted Policy: sanctions 

The United States has imposed sanctions on Afghanistan since before the war on terror after 9/11. After 9/11, sanctions increased against the Taliban, Isis, and Al Qaeda. The goal of the currently imposed sanctions is to force the Taliban to recognize and share power with the Afghan government. The Taliban also has to respect human rights. The U.S. imposed several economic sanctions because of the failure to respect the government and fears of human rights violations.

Should you choose this policy, you need to consider defining and implementing it. In its most robust form, this policy could entail a complete economic embargo, combined with freezing any foreign assets of the Taliban. Alternatively, the approach could entail partial economic boycotts.

 

Though a strict policy towards the Taliban could seem compelling, it carries several risks:

  • This option could encourage a continued outrage of the Taliban, leading to more violence and oppression of the Afghan people.
  • An international political backlash could follow as countries see the policies as too extreme.
  • The lack of funding and constraints on development aid will push a failed state into further demise.
  • The human death toll could be extreme, as many people would be struggling to get their basic needs met and live in poverty.

 

Asylum reform and open doors for the Afghans. 

This policy could be enacted to help save the lives of millions of people. The U.S. government could agree to accept many Afghan refugees and provide economic support to allow them to start a new life in the U.S. The government could commit resources to hire additional immigration judges to process emergency refugee visas quickly.

This option has potential drawbacks:

  • This plan demands a higher investment of resources. It would involve hiring or contracting additional judges and attorneys and training officials to process claims more efficiently to reduce the asylum backlog.
  • This plan would potentially save some people in the country, but it would not address the root causes of displacement and bring lasting change to Afghanistan.

 

Regional Aid and Back to policing the area. 

The U.S. and allies could provide support to Afghans. This approach would involve a significant increase in U.S. foreign aid—and perhaps increased support through police, military, and legal advisors—to bring about greater security, a stricter rule of law, and relief from extreme poverty.

  • This plan has a significant amount of uncertainty. Especially given the history with the Taliban, after 20 years of military support, peace was not restored in the area. U.S. money and support would not necessarily bring more excellent stability to the region.
  • This policy demands a high investment of resources concentrated outside the United States.

 

Disengage

The U.S. could decide that the risks and costs of involving the country in Afghan politics and social issues outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the U.S. could opt to disengage itself from the struggles in Afghanistan completely. This approach would require no additional commitment of U.S. resources.

 

  • Disengaging from the conflict would do nothing to address the large inflow of asylum seekers bound for the U.S. border, leading to a further increase in the already immense backlog of asylum claims in the United States.
  • This plan would drive migrants unwilling to attempt unauthorized crossings in many other countries, including the U.S.
  • It could draw domestic and international criticism for doing nothing to address worsening humanitarian conditions in Afghanistan.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][dfd_spacer screen_wide_spacer_size=”100″ screen_normal_resolution=”1024″ screen_tablet_resolution=”800″ screen_mobile_resolution=”480″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

error: Content is protected !!