02/09/2021
Remarkably little fresh information seems to be available on the plight of Afghans seeking to leave their country to escape the grip of the Taliban. The best on offer, for the moment, comes from
Arab News and that adds little to what we already know.
As it stands, it seems that the Pakistani border is still closed, with the crossing point at Torkham, just east of the Khyber Pass, the scene of "a large number of people" waiting on the Afghanistan side for the opening of the gate. There is nothing recent on the situation at the Spin Boldak crossing point.
Thousands are said to be gathering at the Islam Qala post on the border with Iran, news which in itself is now new. There is some hint, though, that some Afghans are being allowed through, although there is no indication as to whether that is recent information.
Uzbekistan's land borders remain closed, although its government has said it would assist Afghans in transit by air once flights resume. Nothing further is being said of Turkmenistan or Tajikistan.
Given that there are probably more people waiting to escape via these routes than there ever were at Kabul airport, the paucity of information rather illustrates the point that the prominence of a news story depends more on the degree of media access afforded than it does on its intrinsic importance. It comes to a pretty pass, though, when the
Daily Express is quoting the
Guardian as the source of its latest report.
As to the BBC, it is happily filling its (rather generous) quota of human interest stories, with tales about refugees arriving here and the drama of the
Afghanistan women's cricket team, hiding in Kabul. It has little room in its schedule for the more serious plight of the rest of the hundreds of thousands who have yet to make their escape, or face a long and arduous passage to their preferred destinations, once (if) they get across the border.
Few of the media could be bothered to report in detail the developments in Poland, the notable exception being
The Times. It has been retailing the news that the Polish government is set to declare state of emergency, to help sustain a blockade on the border with Belarus in a bid to block the entry of thousands of migrants.
Following in the wake of Lithuania and Latvia, which declared states of emergency last month, this is in response to the hostile action by Alexander Lukashenko, the autocratic Belarusian president, with the Polish prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, explaining that, "Lukashenko's regime decided to push these people onto Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian territory in an effort to destabilise".
Morawiecki describes the border situation as "a crisis", accusing Lukashenko of having people flown into Belarus who are then and then "shoved" into the EU. Poland began building a barbed-wire fence along the border last week in a bid to stem the flow.
Under a state of emergency, we are told by
The Times, Polish authorities will have the power to restrict the movement of people, including aid organisations, in border areas. Curbs will be in force in 183 municipalities in Podlaskie and Lubelskie provinces, all within a mile or so of the border, which more than 3,000 people, mostly from Iraq and Afghanistan, tried to cross last month.
That news, though, was yesterday. Today's
Times, in common with many other national newspapers, has taken Afghanistan off the front pages. With no human drama to capture for the cameras, the issue has been downgraded to the inside pages, except for those papers dwelling on the Westminster village soap opera.
Fewer still media outlets have bothered to report the considered EU response to the crisis. Some may argue that this is one of the hidden benefits of Brexit. In days gone past, the prime minister would doubtless have been in close contact with the European governments, the Council and the Commission, cobbling together a "European" response, of which the UK would be part. Nowadays, we plough our own furrow.
Despite that, the EU response has been interesting, not least for its marked contrast with the UK stance. According to the
Telegraph, one paper which did cover development in Brussels, member states refused to follow the UK's lead in setting a target for the number of refugees they would accept, despite the urging of Jean Asselborn, of Luxembourg. Diplomats in Brussels said he was outnumbered "26 member states to one".
Earlier, von der Leyen
had signalled the EU stance, which seems to be one of stepping up humanitarian aid. Together with planned development aid, which it to be diverted to states bordering on Afghanistan, the plan seems to be to keep as many refugees in place as possible â the essence of what many thought the UK's post-Brexit policy might be.
Commission is to propose quadrupling the humanitarian aid coming from the EU budget, up from the planned â¬50 million for the year 2021 to over â¬200 million. This, says von der Leyen, "will help meet the urgent needs of Afghans both in Afghanistan but also of course in the neighbouring host countries".
On the
last day of August, the Council reaffirmed that the EU's "immediate priority" was to continue to coordinate with international partners, in particular the UN and its agencies.
The primary aim is the stabilisation of the region and "to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches the vulnerable populations, in particular women and children, in Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries". To this end, the EU and Member States are to step up financial support to relevant international organisations.
On the other hand, the EU and its Member States are also signalling a hard line policy on illegal immigration. With the support of Frontex, the Council says, the EU remains "determined to effectively protect the EU external borders and prevent unauthorized entries, and assist the most affected Member States".
There is also tacit support for Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. The Council says it will respond to attempts "to instrumentalise illegal migration for political purposes and other hybrid threats", a guarded but nonetheless clear response to Lukashenko.
As to the EU's ambitions to stabilise the region, this is perhaps a little ambitious, given that we have just witnessed the failure of a 20-year programme to do just that.
This is more so in the light of a rather alarming report in
The Times of India, which has al Qaeda cheering the Afghanistan "victory", and declaring that Kashmir is next target.
It is well established that the first Kashmir War of 1947-1948 was initially fought by militias from the Frontier Tribal Areas adjoining the Northwest Frontier Province.
During the Afghan insurgency, these tribes have been looking west, supporting the anti-coalition forces but, with the government now in the hands of the Taliban, those same tribes could turn their attention to the east, and foment trouble in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
This could kick-off a new round of regional instability, with India redoubling its support for the Baluchi insurgents, attempting to divert Pakistani attention to that troubled area, while activity in Waziristan and the locale could have like effect in destabilising Pakistan.
On the other hand, ISIS-K and the limited anti-Taliban resistance could unsettle the Taliban leadership, which is very far from unified. In the resulting turmoil, there is some reason to believe that the new Taliban government won't last any longer than its predecessor.
Without in any way being able to predict the outcome, there may be sense in the EU's stance of trying to keep Afghan refugees in border host countries, ready to move back to their own country for the next round of rebuilding. In time, those people might be more use to their nation than if they resettle in the UK and United States. In their home country, their skills might be
better appreciated.
Also published on
Turbulent Times.
