As the fifth anniversary of the tumultuous withdrawal from Afghanistan arrives, organisations advocating for the rights of Afghan nationals who assisted NATO forces are demanding more robust planning and support for locally engaged staff in future military interventions. The publication of a revealing report by Local Staff International and AfghanEvac underscores the ongoing plight of those who risked their lives alongside Western forces during the twenty-year conflict.
A Chaotic Retreat
On August 15, 2021, Kandahar—the epicentre of Canada’s military engagement—fell back into Taliban control, followed closely by the capital, Kabul, just three days later. This marked the beginning of a frantic evacuation effort by the Canadian government and its allies, aimed at airlifting tens of thousands of Afghans who faced imminent danger due to their association with Western military and humanitarian efforts.
Sara De Jong, co-chair of Local Staff International, expressed frustration over the disarray that characterised the evacuation process. Each country adopted its own eligibility criteria, leading to confusion and distress among Afghans who believed they were part of a unified mission. “Every country made up their own rules,” De Jong remarked during a Wednesday briefing, emphasising the emotional toll this inconsistency had on those seeking safety.
The Allied Ledger Report
The newly released report, aptly titled *The Allied Ledger*, lays out comprehensive guidelines for how Western nations should manage their commitments to locally engaged personnel. Among its key recommendations is the necessity for mission planning to address the support of local staff not only during operations but also in the aftermath and in the event of crises.
The report advocates for measures such as defining the parameters of employment—similar to the time-limited deployments soldiers experience—and maintaining thorough documentation to facilitate future immigration processes. The scale of the challenge remains daunting; estimates suggest that thousands of Afghans who served foreign militaries and agencies remain stranded.
Prior to the Taliban takeover, Canada successfully resettled around 800 Afghans and their families through targeted immigration programmes, yet many applicants were denied entry.
The Current Landscape
In the wake of the evacuation, countries implemented various immigration schemes to accommodate Afghan refugees. The numbers are staggering: nearly 180,000 Afghans received approval to enter the United States, almost 40,000 were cleared for entry into the UK, and around 45,000 were accepted in Germany. Canada, meanwhile, resettled 63,000 Afghans, though not all had direct ties to military operations.
However, five years after the withdrawal, many of these programmes have since closed, paused, or been entirely scrapped. While 178,000 Afghans have been approved for entry to the U.S., shifting immigration policies have left them in limbo.
Retired Major-General Denis Thompson, who led NATO’s Joint Task Force Kandahar from 2008 to 2009, highlighted the ongoing need for support, revealing that approximately 5,500 Afghans connected to Canada are still awaiting resettlement. The issue gained traction during the federal election of 2021, but with the government now preoccupied with other global challenges, renewing focus on this humanitarian crisis has become increasingly difficult.
The Continuing Struggle
Despite the closure of special immigration programmes, the Canadian federal Immigration Department maintains that Afghans can still apply through different immigration pathways. The government has granted thousands of asylum claims from Afghan individuals who managed to reach Canada. Yet, advocates like De Jong emphasise the moral obligation to honour commitments made during military missions.
“If we fail to honour our duty of care now, we jeopardise our credibility and integrity for future missions,” she warned, highlighting the ethical implications of neglecting those who stood alongside Western forces.
Why it Matters
The plight of Afghan allies is emblematic of a broader issue surrounding the treatment of local staff in conflict zones. As Western nations grapple with the consequences of their military interventions, the lessons learned—or ignored—will significantly impact future operations. Failing to adequately support local personnel not only undermines humanitarian values but also casts a shadow over the integrity of international alliances. The need for a structured, compassionate approach to resettlement and support is more crucial now than ever as the international community reflects on its responsibilities towards those who risked everything for a shared cause.
