Afghans deported to Kabul: talking to the Taliban, yes, but at what price?

The facts

Since the start of October, France has been talking to the Taliban regime. The news, revealed on 7 October by AFP on the strength of a diplomatic source, was later confirmed by the Quai d'Orsay. Paris has opened exchanges described as "technical" with the de facto authorities in Kabul in order to facilitate the return of Afghans in an irregular situation whom the government considers a threat to the safety of French citizens. According to Euronews, citing AFP, these talks would concern "hundreds" of people.

Speaking to RFI, the Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Pascal Confavreux, described "a strictly technical dialogue to facilitate the expulsion of Afghan citizens" in an irregular situation. He insisted that the move did not amount to recognition of the Taliban government. France has had no diplomatic relations with Afghanistan since August 2021, and its embassy in Kabul remains closed.

This Thursday, Le Monde gives a voice to those worried by this decision. Afghan exiles living in France express their fear of being "handed over to their tormentors". According to an estimate by the director general of the French Office for Immigration and Integration, Didier Leschi, cited by Euronews, more than 100,000 Afghans were living in France in 2024.

A European movement

Paris is not alone. According to Euronews, some twenty European Union member states want to speed up returns to Afghanistan. Germany, home to around 450,000 Afghans, has led the way: Taliban representatives travelled to Berlin at the end of the summer, and several deportation flights have already taken place, according to the Afghan exile outlet KabulNow. Belgium and Sweden are reportedly following the same logic, according to the Spanish press.

The European framework is moving in the same direction. On 1 October, in Luxembourg, the interior ministers of the Twenty-Seven adopted new rules on returns, KabulNow reports. They notably allow return centres to be set up outside the Union and certain detentions to be extended beyond 24 months. The European Commission justifies this tightening by a return rate it considers too low: 28% in 2025.

The government's arguments

The executive's position deserves a fair hearing. A state has a duty to protect its citizens. When a person with no right of residence has been convicted of serious offences, the impossibility of removing them feeds a sense of public powerlessness that the extremes exploit relentlessly. The government argues that the dialogue is limited to practical matters, that it is neither about normalising relations with Kabul nor about returning protected refugees, but individuals deemed dangerous. Doing nothing, its defenders say, would mean leaving Germany and others to shape European policy on their own.

What the law says, what the facts say

These arguments deserve to be taken seriously. They do not, however, settle the central question: what becomes of the people sent back?

The UN has already answered. On 22 May, in Geneva, the spokesperson for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Shabia Mantoo, recalled that the principle of non-refoulement prohibits such returns when the person faces serious violations. She cited a report by the United Nations mission in Afghanistan documenting arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and ill-treatment inflicted on returned Afghans. Women, former members of the security forces, journalists and activists are said to be particularly exposed. She also explicitly voiced concern about the new European rules.

The humanitarian context makes the picture worse. According to the High Commissioner's office, nearly 270,000 Afghans had already been returned since the start of 2026 at the time of her statement, mostly from Iran and Pakistan. United Nations agencies are also warning of massive food insecurity.

Finally, there is a political issue. Talking to the Taliban, even "technically", offers them a form of de facto recognition. The Kabul regime has not changed its nature: the United Nations continues to denounce the exclusion of women and girls from education and public life. What leverage does France retain if it obtains a service from the Taliban without demanding anything in return?

Another way

The Gaullist tradition was never afraid to talk to hostile regimes. But it did so to defend clear interests and principles, not to outsource a domestic problem. France can remove genuinely dangerous people while remaining faithful to international law. That requires three safeguards: an individual risk assessment by a judge before any return, as the UN demands; independent monitoring of returnees, entrusted for example to UN agencies; and full information to Parliament on the content and limits of this channel.

Paris could also take a simple demand to Brussels: no return agreement with Kabul without measurable progress on women's rights. In 2021, France evacuated from Kabul Afghans threatened for having worked with it or defended freedoms. The question is now on the table: can it reconcile the safety of its citizens with the word it gave to those who believed in it?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.