The Afghan Taliban have urged the United States to “act responsibly” over the possible deportation of Afghan asylum seekers through Pakistan, invoking human dignity and citizens’ rights while their own rule continues to face serious questions over women’s freedoms, political exclusion, coercive social policies and regional security.
The Taliban’s Foreign Ministry said decisions affecting Afghan citizens should be based on mutual understanding, coordination and respect for their rights and legitimate aspirations. Without explicitly naming Pakistan, it also warned third countries against bargaining over the fate of another country’s nationals and said it was prepared to cooperate in facilitating their safe, dignified and voluntary return.
The statement followed reports that the administration of US President Donald Trump was considering deporting Afghan asylum seekers through Pakistan, with onward return to Afghanistan. The proposal has raised humanitarian concerns because some Afghans who fled their country fear persecution under Taliban rule.
The Taliban’s appeal for responsible conduct, however, raises a wider question about whether the authorities in Kabul apply the same principles to the people living under their own rule.
Since returning to power, the Taliban have barred girls from secondary and higher education and imposed extensive restrictions on women’s employment, public participation and social freedoms. Their policies have deprived millions of girls of educational opportunities and narrowed the space available to women in professional and public life.
The restrictions have consequences beyond individual rights. They undermine families’ economic prospects, weaken the country’s future workforce and threaten the availability of qualified women in essential services. The exclusion of women and girls has consequently become one of the defining features of Taliban governance.
Questions over accountability also extend to political participation, minority rights, dissent and property disputes, including allegations of forced evictions and land dispossession. An inclusive political system requires room for competing views, effective remedies against arbitrary decisions and safeguards for people who lack the power to challenge those in authority. The Taliban’s highly restrictive approach to political and social life raises serious doubts about their commitment to these principles.
The regional security question is equally consequential for Pakistan. Islamabad has repeatedly accused the Taliban authorities of allowing the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other terrorist networks to operate from Afghan territory and threaten Pakistan through cross-border attacks. The Taliban authorities have disputed accusations that they provide safe havens to terrorist groups.
For Pakistan, the issue is not simply a diplomatic disagreement. The ability of terrorist organizations to maintain sanctuaries, organize attacks and exploit cross-border networks poses a direct threat to civilians, law enforcement personnel and security forces. The Taliban authorities’ responsibility to prevent Afghan territory from being used against neighboring countries remains a central test of their regional conduct.
These concerns expose a broader contradiction between the Taliban’s diplomatic language and the consequences of their policies. A government demanding respect for human dignity abroad must also answer for restrictions on education, employment and public life at home, as well as questions about the security threats emanating from territory under its control.
That contradiction does not diminish the rights of Afghan asylum seekers. Their individual circumstances must be assessed fairly, and any removal must comply with applicable legal obligations, including safeguards against return to persecution or other serious harm. The conduct of the Taliban authorities cannot determine the rights of every Afghan citizen seeking protection abroad.
But the Taliban cannot credibly treat human dignity as a principle applicable only when addressing foreign governments. Their own record remains central to whether their appeal for responsible conduct carries weight beyond diplomatic rhetoric.
