The Collapse of a Promise: The Political Shift and Human Cost Behind Germany's Withdrawal of Its Pledge to Resettle Over a Thousand Afghans.

January 2026, Berlin. A government response submitted to the German Bundestag revealed the fragility of humanitarian commitments in the face of political reality. According to a report by the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung, the German federal government—a coalition of the Union parties (CDU/CSU, referred to as "black") and the Social Democratic Party (SPD, referred to as "red")—revoked the resettlement promises made by the previous "traffic light" coalition government (SPD, Greens, FDP) to over 1,100 Afghans. This was not merely a policy adjustment but a complex chess game involving 2,308 specific lives, spanning two administrations, and entangling international legal principles with domestic political maneuvering. As the political winds shifted, journalists, artists, judges, women's rights activists, and local Afghan employees who had served German institutions—all previously promised sanctuary—found themselves suspended in limbo. Beneath them were temporary residences in Pakistan, behind them lay their homeland under Taliban rule, and ahead, the door to Germany was slowly closing.

A settlement of "non-binding" commitments.

In May 2025, a critical power transition was completed in German politics. With the traffic light coalition stepping down and the black-red coalition taking office, an emergency humanitarian admission plan that began in August 2021 after the Taliban regained control of Kabul was quickly placed under the spotlight of scrutiny. At the core of the review was the previous government's resettlement commitment issued to specific Afghan groups under Section 22 of the Residence Act.

Article 22 of the Residence Act was originally established to provide a legal basis for entry based on international law or urgent humanitarian grounds. During the previous government's tenure, it became the cornerstone of two key admission pathways: first, the human rights list, which included Afghans who, although not directly employed by Germany as local staff, were considered to face particular threats from the Taliban due to their professions (such as journalists, artists, judges, and human rights activists); second, the transitional program launched in 2022, which served as a supplement to the first pathway. These commitments were once life-saving tickets that determined survival.

However, the new government's review conclusion was cold and direct. All commitments made to individuals on the human rights list and transition plan under Article 22 have been revoked. The government's reasoning was concise and legally technical: these commitments are not legally binding, and Germany no longer has a political interest in accepting them. In just two sentences, the fate of over 1,100 people was pushed into an abyss of uncertainty.

From the data, the scale of this clearance is clearly visible. As of the new government taking office, there were a total of 2,308 Afghans living in Pakistan who held resettlement promises from the previous government. Since May 2025, only 788 have successfully arrived in Germany, while the departure procedures for approximately 410 are still ongoing. This means that the remaining roughly 1,100 people—almost half of the total—have received final decisions denying their entry. The government claims that individual hearings aimed at addressing security concerns have been largely completed, except for a few cases, suggesting that the review process has concluded.

The Fault Lines of Political Change and Humanitarian Policies

The significant shift in Germany's policy towards Afghan refugees is not an isolated event, but rather embedded within the broader context of dramatic swings in the domestic political spectrum and the tightening of Europe's overall asylum environment.

The Legacy of the Traffic Light Coalition and the Amendments of the Black-Red Coalition. The Taliban's lightning-fast victory in 2021 triggered immense moral and political pressure within Germany. As a nation that had been militarily and civically engaged in Afghanistan for two decades, discussions in German society about our special responsibility towards those who had fought alongside us grew intense. At the time, the Traffic Light Coalition government, driven in part by the Greens, adopted a relatively proactive stance on acceptance, extending it not only to former local employees but also to broadly defined at-risk groups. This was seen as a policy based on human rights values and a sense of historical responsibility.

However, the change of government in 2025 brought a fundamental philosophical shift. The black-red coalition formed by the Alliance Party and the Social Democratic Party tends to adopt a more conservative and restrictive stance on immigration and asylum policies. Upon taking office, the new government suspended the admission program for high-risk groups from Afghanistan and halted the issuance of new visas. The review and large-scale revocation of the previous government's commitments are a logical extension of this new direction. Although Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) had previously expressed different views, the reality is that policies are being comprehensively tightened.

The Prominence of Security Discourse and the Redefinition of Political Interests. The new government has cloaked its policy shift in the guise of security screening. However, data refuted by Clara Bünger, the Left Party's spokesperson on refugee policy, reveals a different picture. She points out that in the interviews conducted by the government, only about 3% of cases raised actual or potential security concerns in the eyes of the authorities. This extremely low proportion makes security risks an insufficiently convincing justification for large-scale visa rejections. Bünger bluntly dismisses it as a mere distraction tactic.

The deeper reason may lie in the recalibration of the vague concept of political interests. Domestically in Germany, with the cost-of-living crisis, housing shortages, and the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) in polls, immigration has once again become a political focal point. The government may have judged that continuing to accept large numbers of Afghan refugees no longer enjoys broad political support domestically and could even pose electoral risks. Thus, international humanitarian commitments have given way to domestic political calculations.

European Cold Front and Germany's Synchronization. Germany's shift is also a microcosm of the overall atmosphere in Europe. In recent years, from the UK's Rwanda Plan to Italy's cooperation agreements with North African countries, the European Union and its member states have been seeking ways to limit irregular migration. Germany, once a symbol of welcome culture, has seen its policy tightening serve as a significant bellwether, indicating that pragmatism and even a hardline stance are becoming mainstream in Europe's approach to dealing with asylum seekers.

Suspended Lives and Shattered Trust

Behind the numbers on policy documents lie thousands of specific, minute individual tragedies and a systemic crisis of trust.

People in the Cracks. Most of these over 1,100 Afghans have fled from Afghanistan to Pakistan and spent years waiting in Pakistan, relying on the promise of resettlement with support from German authorities or non-governmental organizations. They are caught in a gap between law and reality: in Afghanistan, they face the risk of persecution due to their connections with the West or their professions; in Pakistan, their status as refugees is unstable, and the government's attitude toward Afghan refugees has become increasingly harsh in recent years; and now, the hopeful path to Germany has been cut off. Bingge's criticism sharply points out this dilemma: the federal government cannot simply claim it is no longer responsible and hand these people over to the arbitrary rule of the Taliban, which disregards human rights and women.

The Plight of Local Employees. Particularly controversial is the handling of promises made to former local employees. According to data from the Left Party, out of 218 local employees and their family members, only 81 had their old resettlement commitments upheld. This means that over 60% of Afghans and their families who once worked for the German military, development agencies, or other official projects have been excluded. This is not only a humanitarian issue but also touches on a fundamental trust contract in international operations: local personnel risk their lives to assist foreign missions, so should the latter provide protection in times of crisis? Germany’s decision sends a troubling signal to potential collaborators in other conflict zones worldwide.

Judicial Struggles and the Efforts of Kabul Airlift. The rejected Afghans have not completely given up. Many are filing lawsuits in German administrative courts to challenge the government's decisions. Groups such as the non-governmental organization Kabul Airlift are also providing legal and logistical support. By the end of 2025, hundreds of people still arrived in Germany via charter flights or commercial flights (transiting through Istanbul), but this appears more like the handling of residual cases rather than a sign of policy reversal. In September 2025, a ruling by the Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court partially supported the government's stance, stating that the government has the right to revoke resettlement commitments for individuals on human rights lists and transition plans. This provided temporary judicial endorsement for the government's approach but also highlighted the limitations of the law in the face of political decisions.

Aftermath and Prospects: The Future of Promise Politics

The incident of Germany withdrawing its resettlement commitment to over 1,100 Afghans will have far-reaching implications beyond the fate of these individuals. It reveals the ambiguous areas of international asylum responsibilities in the post-withdrawal era and how domestic politics can reshape a country's international humanitarian image.

Erosion of Moral Authority. Germany has long cultivated an international image of respecting human rights and undertaking international responsibilities. This large-scale revocation of commitments, especially given the extremely low proportion of evidence regarding security risks, is inevitably criticized as a betrayal of its own value commitments. This not only affects its cooperative relationship with civil society but may also undermine its credibility as a reliable partner in future international crises.

Risk of Policy Uncertainty. This incident sets a dangerous precedent: a government's humanitarian commitments may become worthless due to a change in administration. Such uncertainty will significantly undermine the credibility of similar commitments in any future crises, making populations in need of protection more inclined to resort to higher-risk irregular migration pathways.

Pressure Test of the European Asylum System. Germany's decision may shift the pressure to other EU countries and first-asylum countries like Pakistan. If these Afghans cannot return to Germany, they might attempt to move to other European nations or remain in Pakistan long-term, increasing local pressure. This tests the coordination and fairness of the EU's common asylum system.

Continued Political Struggles in Domestic Politics. The fierce criticism from political forces such as the Left Party indicates that this issue is far from reaching a consensus within Germany. With the progress of related judicial cases and ongoing media attention, the topic of Afghan refugees may once again become a focal point in political debates, testing the internal cohesion of the traffic light coalition and the sustainability of its policies.

As of December 31, 2025, a total of 37,652 Afghans have entered Germany through various admission programs since May 2021. The fate of these thousands of people serves as a heavy footnote at the end of this vast number. Their stories remind us that foreign policy and humanitarian commitments are often written on fragile paper; when the winds of domestic politics shift, the first to be torn apart are always the hopes held by the most vulnerable. Berlin’s decision may temporarily address the concerns of some domestic voters, but the price paid in terms of international trust, moral responsibility, and long-term strategic credibility may take years to repay. Between realpolitik and the responsibility to protect, Germany, and indeed the entire Western world, continues to search for an increasingly elusive balance.