Germany’s recent decision to deport 28 men to Afghanistan after a knife attack committed by a Syrian asylum seeker has sparked much debate. Announced just before state elections, these deportations are the first since the Taliban took control of the country in 2021. The decision aligns with the German government's gradual shift to the right on migration in recent months, driven by growing public dissatisfaction with the number of asylum seekers and the concurrent rise of the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).
While it might seem reasonable for any government to tighten security and migration controls after such an incident, these should never come at the expense of any state’s adherence to international law and human rights obligations.
Amnesty International has firmly condemned Germany’s decision, warning that ‘extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and torture are commonplace’ in Afghanistan, and that by carrying out deportations, the German government is effectively becoming an ‘accomplice of the Taliban’.
In 2021 the UN had issued a non-return advisory for Afghanistan, calling for a ‘bar on forced returns of Afghan nationals’ due to the country’s instability and human rights situation.
Yet, Germany appears to be ignoring these concerns. Worse, the deportations could set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for other European countries to follow suit. In fact, Austria stated that it intends to join Germany and start returning people with criminal records back to Afghanistan as well.
Security vs. human rights
It must be underlined that, although the 28 deportees were 'convicted criminals', as Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz has said, this does not justify their forced return to an unsafe country. The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits sending people back to countries where they face persecution, is a fundamental tenet of international law. The principle exists precisely to prevent the kind of harm that these deportations risk. No matter the nature of the crime committed, this basic human right should be upheld, and should never be compromised for electoral reasons.
Germany’s recent deportations are reminiscent of the spirit behind the post-9/11 policies that prioritised security over civil liberties, where many European states and the US passed sweeping laws that curbed human rights in the name of protecting public safety. Then, as now, political opportunism drove governments to implement measures that included mass surveillance and indefinite detention.
In terms of public safety, deportations (and exceedingly repressive policies in general) are not only ethically problematic, but also ineffective. While they may offer the illusion of increasing security to some sectors of public opinion, they ultimately only divert the attention away from real long-term solutions, such as investing in social integration programs, addressing the marginalisation and discrimination of migrant communities, and tackling broader issues like poverty and unemployment that fuel social unrest and crime.
In other words, by deporting individuals to Afghanistan, the German government is shifting the focus away from the complex social, economic, cultural and political roots of criminal acts, focusing instead on short-sighted repressive measures. True public safety requires addressing social inequality, lack of opportunities, systemic exclusion, and what drives people towards extremist ideologies.
Normalising right-wing narratives
Germany’s decision illustrates how governments, including those led by seemingly progressive and leftwing parties such as the governing Social Democratic Party (SPD), are yielding to right-wing pressure on migration and security issues. In an attempt to adopt a ‘tough’ stance on migration, they are trading human rights with short term political gains.
In Germany, the SPD seems trapped between their progressive base and a growing and increasingly influential far-right political bloc. Rather than standing firm on its values, it is bending to right-wing pressure, appeasing critics who accuse them of being “soft” on migration.
What was once the domain of far-right politics—strict migration controls, deportations, and tough-on-crime measures—has crept into the platforms of traditionally progressive parties such as the SPD. By mirroring right-wing stances, the latter appeal to, and fuel, public fears and anxieties around migration and security. The fallout from this is predictable: when progressive parties adopt right-wing talking points on migration, they also legitimise and normalise far-right narratives.
Progressive parties must reclaim the narrative around migration and security. First and foremost, they should stand firm on the principle that human rights are non-negotiable, regardless of the political pressures or security concerns at play. Whilst individuals who commit heinous crimes and security must of course be taken seriously, and states have a duty to protect victims, upholding human rights and international law should still remain at the heart of any policy.
The debate surrounding Germany’s deportations to Afghanistan should serve as a wake-up call for progressives everywhere. Left-wing governments must be pressured to resist the temptation to mimic the right and instead, offer a vision of security that doesn’t come at the expense of the most vulnerable. If they fail to do so, the line between right and left will continue to blur, with devastating consequences for those caught in the crossfire.
Tommaso Segantini is a freelance writer with a background in international relations and refugee studies. He focuses on the European Union’s border policies and on gender-related aspects of migration. His work has appeared on Jacobin, openDemocracy, and Adbusters.
Follow him on X: @tomhazo
Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.