By Shahid Khan
For over forty years, Pakistan has been the world’s unsung host to millions of Afghan refugees, a generosity unmatched in modern history. Ever since the Soviet attacked Afghanistan in 1979, since then, Pakistan has been welcoming millions of Afghans and the current estimates are 3.7 million, including the documented and undocumented. It is the longest refugee crisis in the world ever and cost Pakistan over 150 billion dollars and over 80,000 people died in the security related events and the population, economic and security profiles of the nation changed forever.
Repatriation decision and questions on state sovereignty
Pakistan decided to send back Afghan refugees using its right of sovereignty, but today the international community is criticizing it. This criticism shows a strange double standard, because Pakistan has taken a very humanitarian step. Yet, Pakistan is being questioned as to why it is exercising the same right that other countries of the world generally do. The international law relating to the protection of refugees and the sovereignty of states gives a definite backing to the Pakistan stand.
Since Pakistan is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, its human rights and state sovereignty under international law merely places it under the strict obligation to adhere to the customary international law permitting exceptions in situations of national security, economic necessity and mass influx.
Limits of non-refoulement under international law
The principle of non-refoulement is usually mentioned by the critics and even within the confines of the Refugee Convention, the principle is not absolute. Europe Article 33(2) exceptionally provides exceptions to encounters where refugees threaten national security or the maintenance of the order of the land. North America, the Middle East, and Australia also have non-refoulement laws, and Europe has enacted a very broad rule that provides exceptions that refugees may be sent back if they pose a threat to the national interest or national order.
In addition, treaty restrictions that do not apply to Pakistan, and exceptions to customary international law, which Pakistan clearly follows, also reinforce this right. In this context, Pakistan’s refugee return policy is not only in accordance with international law, but also in line with the principles of Pakistan’s exercise of sovereign power like other countries in the world.
Changed circumstances in Afghanistan after 2021
Pakistan has another legal argument of the doctrine of changed circumstances. Taliban has gained control over Afghanistan since August 2021, stopping the armed conflict, which was the initial cause of the refugee flows. Although this is controversial, the establishment of an effective government that controls the territory and the declaration of amnesty for returnees fundamentally represents a change in legal approach. There are more than thirty diplomatic missions of countries in Kabul, the work of UN agencies all over Afghanistan, and millions of Afghans are still enjoying calm life in the country.
These changing circumstances enable cessation clauses in international refugee law, whereby protection can be legally terminated when the circumstances that led to the granting of protection no longer exist. Iran and Turkey have also begun returning Afghan refugees on the same basis, and despite short refugee hosting periods and harsh measures, they have not faced much international criticism. This is the situation that Pakistan is facing today.
Global state practices on refugee return and border control
An international survey of the state practice highlights the restraint of the approach of Pakistan. Having loudly claimed that it is protecting refugees overseas, the European Union has constructed Fortress Europe, a practice based on pushbacks, detention, and third-country deals to prevent the arrival of refugees. Greece performs aggressive maritime pushbacks; Denmark withdraws Syrian protections on refugees in less than nine years and the United Kingdom tries to move asylum seekers to Rwanda without considering their claims.
The U.S. has deported more than two million migrants due to Title 42, separated families and the Remain in Mexico policy and Australia upholds offshore detention centres in Nauru and Manus Island. Outside the west, Saudi Arabia, Iran has repatriated more than a million of Afghans a year, Turkey regularly deports Syrians and Afghans, India has deported Rohingya refugees on security reasons and China keeps sending its North Korean citizens back under bilateral agreements.
These modern initiatives reflect a clear international trend: return, expulsion, and inaccessible border policies are common tools of state sovereignty. Against this backdrop, Pakistan’s phased, voluntary, and humanitarian return plan is far more moderate than strategies around the world and has strong alignment with international standards.
Security challenges linked to undocumented refugee movement
The policy is also justified by the security needs of Pakistan. Terrorism has claimed more than 80,000 citizens in the country, most of which is attributed to the porous border regions where the movement of refugees was not checked. Criminal networks, groups such as the TTP and the ISIS-K, and some have used these movements to stage operations resulting in the death of people. Thousands of cross border infiltration incidents, tens of thousands of weapons and large-scale document fraud has been documented by security forces. The international law openly allows the rejection of protection to people who would be a threat to national security.
The protracted security interests of Pakistan, which are confirmed by high losses of life and existence by threats, obviously pass this test. In UN Security Council Resolution 1373, the requirements of states to manage the borders and prevent the movement of the terrorists are established, and such duties Pakistan cannot bestow on itself and retain a free flow of refugees. Pakistan has shown unusual restraint, even in the face of greater threats to it, while other countries quickly repatriated smaller groups despite less serious threats.
Economic strain of hosting millions of refugees
Similarly, economic burden has also been at unsustainable levels. The costs incurred in hosting refugees to Pakistan mean more than 5% of its GDP in hosting refugees to the tune of over 12.5 billion each year compared to the less than 3 billion aid in 40 years of international aid. The refugee population imposes a burden on infrastructures, healthcare, education, and even labour markets and it competes with an already strained domestic population of more than 30 percent inflation, unsustainable debt, energy shortages, and water scarcity.
The legal principle of ultra ‘posse nemo obligatur’ which means that no one is obliged beyond their ability applies clearly here. No international legal framework expects a state to jeopardize its own citizens’ survival. Just as countries in Europe and Asia invoke economic concerns to justify stricter immigration policies, Pakistan is entitled to the same consideration, facing far greater pressures.
Humanitarian framework of Pakistan’s repatriation plan
The repatriation plan forwarded by Pakistan is moderate and full of humanitarian concern. It contains a six months voluntary option of repatriation with cash and transport benefits, a compulsory registration including biometric information and orderly repatriation that preserves the families and acknowledges humanitarian exceptions. This steps-based, gradual strategy is in stark contrast to the one-day-old deportations, family separations, and detentions that prevail in richer countries that deal with much smaller refugee populations.
Pakistan also has property sale assistance and document processing services that most of the forced return programs across the world do not provide. The criticism of those countries where severe means are regularly used is self-contradictory: expecting Pakistan to do something, these countries do not want to do the same thing themselves.
Lack of international burden-sharing
Finally, the international community’s failure to share the burden undermines any moral authority to criticize Pakistan. Promised resettlement, development aid, and security assistance have largely gone unfulfilled, while Pakistan has borne the burden of hosting millions of refugees for nearly half a century. Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon receive far more aid for smaller refugee groups, while Pakistan’s repeated appeals have yielded only small indications. The paradox is evident at the global level as rich countries expect Pakistan to shoulder a huge burden for decades, but provide no comparable support in return.
Legal, ethical and practical grounds of Pakistan’s position
As Pakistan moves forward, it is taking this step on legal, ethical and practical grounds. Its sovereign right to control borders, exceptions to customary law for national security and economic necessity, the changing conditions in Afghanistan, and decades of humanitarian service—all justify this path.
A prolonged refugee crisis with global implications
Pakistan has hosted Afghan refugees for the past forty-five years, with a human and financial toll unprecedented in modern history. The international community’s criticism reflects not Pakistan’s failure but the world’s failure to recognize or share the burden that Pakistan bears alone.
Read more expert opinions here: https://thepublicpurview.com/category/blog/
For more stories and insights, visit The Green Post
