Uzbekistan: the Afghan Refugee Dilemma

The uncertainty on style of governance caused by the newly declared Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan (IEA), lead to the influx on number of refugees throughout the southern borders of Uzbekistan. The country did have a past experience dealing with the sudden surge of refugees, such as the one that had resulted from the 2010 ethnic clash in Kyrgyzstan, although it never invited large amounts of non-Uzbek refugees. A month before the Afghan refugee crises, Uzbek government had shown its support to the 1951 Refugee Convention, as part of its reforms; thus the sudden surge Afghan refugees will put the Uzbek authorities’ determination to the test.

This article will briefly analyse the implications of the 1951 Convention towards the Central Asian State, and attempt to delineate the possible options (what ifs) presented to Uzbekistan from the said document.

Article 1 of the Convention defines the term refugee as anyone who:

…owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

5 requirements can be seen from the following article for a person to be considered a refugee:

1. they should have a well-founded fear;
2. they should be believed to be persecuted by the government they are seeking refuge;
3. the reason of persecution should be race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;
4. they should be outside their country;
5. unwilling to return back to their country;

We can see that, when lightly implemented, the Afghan refugees do satisfy the definition of refugee.

1. Their fear is induced by the portrayal of the Taliban group or due to their past experiences with them (who are the current authorities of IEA);
2. The highly possibility of being persecuted for their views of religion or political belief (possibly wishing non-Sharia based State);
3. The reason of persecution being their non-compliant beliefs with new authorities of the State.
4. Them being throughout the borders of Uzbekistan.
5. The fact that they are near the borders, show that they do not intend to go back to their country.

It is important to note, regardless of Uzbekistan recognizing them as a refugee or not, does not alter their status of being a refugee. Although, it just shows whether the State is accepting its legal obligation of providing refuge for them.

(As I am writing an interesting news popped up, 150 refugees were sent back to Afghanistan. The reasoning given was that the Taliban promised not to persecute them for fleeing the country; and the refugees showed their willingness to go back to their country. Resulting in 150 refugees forfeiting their status of refugees.)

Since, the matter of them being eligible to be treated as per the Convention has been settled, we can move to discussing the options put forth to Uzbekistan by the Convention, on handling the refugees.

Article 33 which enshrined the principle of non-refoulement (a term with french origins) already sets a certain limitation to the Uzbek government. According to the principle, a State can not send back a person, “ … to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened”. Hence, obligating the Uzbek government not to send back those who came to its footsteps seeking shelter, resulting such option to be considered illegal.

This leaves 3 more legal options (what ifs) to the Uzbek authorities:

1. Accepting the refugees and treating them no less than their own citizens (as outlined in the Convention);
2. Forming refugee camps near the borders and policing those camps;
3. Resettling the refugees to any State where their freedom or life is not threatened.

We can clearly see which options where chosen up until now by Uzbekistan. It ignoring the first option, given the current resources it has and ongoing pandemic, might seem reasonable. Although, we can’t ignore the fact that the country is playing its part, and maintaining its legal obligations (till now). Since, the main objective of the Convention is not to push a State to accept certain individuals, but oblige a State to ensure the safety of the individuals in whatever possible way.

— — — — — — —

Not an expert. Just a superficial analysis.