Taliban in Brussels: Diplomatic Dialogue, Humanitarian Crisis and International Law

The invitation extended to a Taliban delegation to attend a technical meeting organized by the European Commission in Brussels has reignited one of the most complex debates in contemporary international law: to what extent is it possible to engage in dialogue with a regime accused of serious human rights violations without, even indirectly, granting it a form of political legitimacy?

The meeting, held at the European institutions, marks a significant development in relations between the European Union and the Afghan authorities that took power after the Taliban returned to power in August 2021. Since then, no EU Member State has formally recognized the so-called Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as the country's legitimate government. Nevertheless, the growing complexity of migration, consular and humanitarian issues has made it necessary to establish certain channels of communication with the authorities that exercise effective control over Afghan territory.

The European Commission stressed that the meeting was purely technical in nature and did not constitute diplomatic recognition of the Taliban government. Its stated purpose was to address practical issues relating to consular cooperation, migration management and the possible return of Afghan nationals who do not have a legal right to remain within the European Union. Belgium, which issued the visas required for the delegation to enter the country, likewise clarified that the decision was taken solely because of its role as host State of the European institutions and did not reflect any change in its political position towards the regime.

From the perspective of international law, it is essential to distinguish between two concepts that are often confused in public debate: the recognition of a State or government and the maintenance of operational relations with a de facto authority. Recognition is a political act through which a State acknowledges a government as the legitimate representative of another State. Technical dialogue, by contrast, is a practical instrument allowing States to address concrete issues such as humanitarian assistance, consular protection, border management and repatriation without automatically implying diplomatic recognition.

This distinction, however, is much clearer in legal theory than in political practice. Every official meeting, institutional photograph or negotiating table inevitably carries symbolic significance. For this reason, numerous human rights organizations have expressed serious concern about the European initiative, arguing that it could contribute to the gradual normalization of the Taliban regime. Their concern stems from the fear that migration management may increasingly take precedence over the protection of the fundamental rights of the Afghan people.

The issue becomes even more significant considering that the Taliban government continues to face strong criticism from the United Nations and numerous international organizations for its systematic violations of human rights, particularly against women, girls and minorities. In this context, any diplomatic engagement requires an extremely delicate balance between political pragmatism and fidelity to the values upon which the European Union is founded.

However, limiting the debate to its diplomatic dimension alone would provide only a partial understanding of the issue. Any political decision concerning relations with the Taliban should also be assessed in light of the dramatic reality currently faced by the Afghan population. Behind diplomatic meetings, institutional statements and discussions on repatriation lies a country that continues to sink into one of the world's most severe humanitarian crises.

According to the United Nations, approximately three quarters of Afghanistan's population are currently unable to meet their basic needs. Millions of people are living in conditions of extreme food insecurity, while the healthcare system has reached the brink of collapse and international humanitarian assistance has been drastically reduced.

Within this context emerge stories that seem to belong to another century, yet they are taking place in 2026.

Fathers forced to decide which child might survive. Girls promised in marriage at the age of nine or ten in exchange for money sufficient to keep the rest of their family alive for a few more years. Children handed over to pay for life-saving surgery. These are not isolated incidents but rather the symptom of a society pushed to the very limits of survival.

It is precisely this reality that makes the presence of a Taliban delegation in Brussels particularly sensitive. Any institutional engagement with the regime cannot be separated from the context in which it exercises power. Diplomatic dialogue, however necessary for operational reasons, cannot ignore the fact that millions of Afghans are being deprived of their most fundamental rights.

These tragedies are not solely the consequence of the Taliban's return to power. The regime has undoubtedly dismantled many fundamental rights, particularly those of women and girls, severely restricting access to education, employment and public life. Restrictions on personal freedom, gender segregation and the systematic exclusion of women have led numerous United Nations experts to describe the situation as an unprecedented system of institutionalized gender persecution.

For this very reason, the presence of Taliban representatives in Brussels has generated considerable criticism. Many human rights organizations warn that necessary diplomatic pragmatism risks being perceived as the gradual normalization of a regime that continues to deny fundamental freedoms to its own population.

At the same time, it would be overly simplistic to attribute the current humanitarian catastrophe exclusively to the Taliban. The crisis has also been exacerbated by the gradual disengagement of the international community.

Following the Western withdrawal, humanitarian assistance has been drastically reduced. Financial support for Afghanistan has fallen sharply precisely as poverty, drought, unemployment and the collapse of essential public services have intensified. When humanitarian assistance becomes an instrument of geopolitical strategy, civilians inevitably become its primary victims, paying the price for international tensions in which they bear no responsibility.

From a legal perspective, the situation raises profoundly troubling questions.

Afghanistan remains bound, at least under international law, by obligations to protect fundamental human rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires States to protect children from sale, economic exploitation, child marriage and trafficking. Likewise, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) remains one of the most important international instruments protecting women's rights, although its principles are now systematically violated by the Taliban authorities.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also recognizes the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, healthcare and conditions compatible with human dignity.

From the European perspective, an additional legal issue arises. Any policy concerning the return of Afghan nationals must fully comply with the principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Geneva Convention and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. No individual may be returned to a country where they face persecution, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Cooperation with the Afghan authorities must therefore never result in reducing the legal safeguards afforded to applicants for international protection.

When a family is forced to sell a daughter simply to buy flour or pay for surgery, we are no longer witnessing an individual tragedy. We are witnessing the simultaneous collapse of civil, economic and social rights.

Responsibility cannot be attributed solely to the Afghan authorities. The international community certainly has a duty to ensure that humanitarian assistance does not strengthen a regime responsible for serious human rights violations. At the same time, however, it also has a duty to prevent millions of civilians from being condemned to hunger.

The European Union therefore faces an exceptionally delicate challenge: engaging in dialogue where necessary to address operational matters such as repatriation or consular cooperation, while remaining fully committed to the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, namely respect for human dignity, freedom, equality, the rule of law and human rights.

International humanitarian law and the principles of international solidarity cannot be applied only when politically convenient.

The images of fathers desperately waiting for a day's work or declaring that they are forced to sell a daughter in order to save their remaining children are not merely symbols of Afghanistan's suffering.

They also raise a question for Europe itself: is it possible to engage with a regime without forgetting the victims of its policies? Diplomatic pragmatism may sometimes be necessary, but it must never become a silent acceptance of the unacceptable.

As long as hunger continues to turn children into commodities and millions of people remain deprived of their most basic rights, we cannot simply speak of a humanitarian emergency. We must call it by its real name: one of the gravest failures of international law, international cooperation and our collective conscience.