Washington- The US President’s administration is heading Donald Trump Towards a controversial approach in dealing with the issue of Washington’s Afghan allies, by discussing the resettlement of hundreds of people stranded in… Qatar Within third countries, including the Republic Democratic Republic of the CongoAccording to what was reported by human rights organizations familiar with the ongoing consultations.
This trend comes at a time when the process of resettlement of these Afghans is clearly faltering, after visa granting procedures have almost stopped since the beginning of 2025, which has kept hundreds of those who cooperated with the American forces, or have family ties inside the United States, in an open waiting state despite having completed prior security screening stages.
This is not related to a new wave of refugees or undocumented migration cases, but rather to a specific group of Afghans whose files are directly linked to the American war on Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021. It includes translators, former partners in special operations, family members of American citizens, in addition to women who worked in security and military missions.
Suspended path
The issue gains its sensitivity from the limited number presented, as it is about about 1,100 people, including about 700 to 800 women and children, who were transferred to the State of Qatar as part of what is supposed to be a transitional path towards completing permanent immigration procedures to the United States.
They were originally evacuated as part of American arrangements that aimed to resettle them through legal paths, most notably the “Enduring Welcome” program, before this process faltered with the suspension or slowdown of the work of this program, which turned this temporary path into an open residence with no clear horizon.
In an interview with Al Jazeera Net, the head of the “Afghan Evac” coalition, Shawn Vandiver, confirmed that the current approach “represents a clear retreat from the commitments made by the United States towards its partners,” stressing that they “did not leave their country in search of asylum, but were transferred as part of an official mission led by Washington.”
He added that the group stranded in Qatar had previously undergone strict security checks, which makes their situation different from traditional asylum paths. They were “about to move to the United States before the process stopped,” and he pointed out that today they live in a state of complete ambiguity, as “they are not informed of anything, and they receive their information from the media.”
Betrayal of trust
If this group rejects the proposed destinations, organizations believe that this will later be used against them as a rejection of an available solution, which may open the door to their return to Afghanistan, which raises broader questions about the extent of Washington’s fulfillment of its obligations towards those who served with it during the war.
Observers believe that the message sent by these policies is not limited to Afghanistan, but extends globally, raising questions about the extent of Washington’s reliability towards its allies in future conflicts.
In this context, Jason Campbell, the former director of the Afghanistan file in the US Department of Defense, believes that what is happening is dealing “a direct blow to the credibility of the United States,” noting that the talk is about a limited number who had previously been subjected to security scrutiny, and whose resettlement was supposed to be completed within existing obligations.
Campbell warns – in his speech to Al Jazeera Net – that the failure to address this issue, despite its limited cost, does not have a limited impact on the Afghan situation, but rather creates a precedent that may affect the decisions of local partners in future conflicts, when they evaluate the risks of cooperation with the United States.
Humanitarian crisis
The deportation plan raises widespread criticism from human rights organizations, especially because of its humanitarian repercussions on those concerned, who have been living for months in a state of legal vacuum, amid fears that transferring them to third countries may undermine their chances of completing resettlement in the United States, and practically remove them from the framework on which they were transferred.
In this context, the head of the Afghan Evac coalition noted cases of severe psychological pressure, in light of “an increasing feeling of abandonment and loss of confidence.” He added that these people “risked their lives during the years of war,” considering that “it is shameful to leave them in limbo or push them toward unclear destinations.”
For her part, Wanda Felbab-Brown, senior researcher in the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution in Washington, confirms that transferring this group to an environment that already suffers from security and economic challenges such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo “does not represent a solution, but rather complicates the crisis.”
Brown warns – in an interview with Al Jazeera Net – that the absence of the basic components of integration, whether in terms of language or support networks, may leave these people facing “double isolation and new risks.”
A political or security decision
While the United States has historically been accustomed to providing protection and resettlement pathways for those who cooperated with it on the ground, from receiving Southeast Asian refugees after the Vietnam War to establishing special visa programs for Iraqis and Afghans, the current path reflects a redefinition of these commitments in light of the US administration adopting an approach to tightening immigration policies and reducing their political costs.
Marvin Weinbaum, director of the Pakistan and Afghanistan Program at the Middle East Institute, believes that what is happening cannot be separated from a broader tightening in American immigration policies, which goes beyond the Afghan case to include multiple groups, especially those from the developing world.
He explained to Al Jazeera Net that the peculiarity of the Afghan case lies in that those concerned “are not ordinary immigrants,” but rather people who have been previously verified and have been directly linked to the American mission over two decades, which makes retracting their resettlement commitments “closer to a political decision than to a security assessment.”
Weinbaum also links this trend to the presence of a “selective tendency” in immigration policies, influenced by the backgrounds of the countries of origin, in addition to the use of security justifications despite this category being subject to strict scrutiny.
He also noted that their transfer to third countries often takes place through arrangements in which the United States provides financial incentives or political preferences to the receiving countries, without real guarantees of long-term stability conditions.
