The German government is facing mounting criticism over a controversial scheme offering financial incentives and material assistance to Afghan individuals previously granted provisional acceptance for relocation to Germany, in exchange for withdrawing their applications from the asylum process. An email from the AFG-PAK Taskforce, a unit of the German government’s international cooperation organization GIZ, detailing the program has been leaked, sparking outrage amongst those affected and raising serious ethical concerns.
The core of the initiative centers around accelerating the closure of existing asylum procedures, driven by the impending deadline of December 2025, after which all cases must be finalized. The email explicitly states that the current situation in Pakistan, where many applicants are awaiting departure, necessitates a timeframe that cannot guarantee completion of all processing. Consequently, the Interior Ministry is offering support options – including pre-departure financial assistance and post-return start-up aid – to those willing to relinquish their claims.
The proposed assistance packages, reportedly ranging into the low five-figure range in some instances, encompass not only direct financial aid but also logistical support for departure from Pakistan and provision of basic necessities, including accommodation, food, medical care and psychosocial support for three months upon arrival in Afghanistan. Crucially, the offer is accompanied by a stipulation that acceptance signifies a permanent withdrawal from the asylum process, precluding any future reconsideration.
Legal representatives of several applicants have condemned the program as “immoral”. Farhad Bahlol, a Bremen-based lawyer representing dozens of Afghan applicants, strongly advises against participation, characterizing the offers as exploitative. The scheme impacts approximately 165 cases, representing roughly 660 individuals including families. One Afghan woman, quoted anonymously, expressed dismay, stating that the offered sum barely covers previously incurred passport and visa expenses. She recounted the decision to flee Kabul due to safety concerns, fearing a return to perilous conditions.
Medico International, a humanitarian aid organization, has also voiced sharp criticism, arguing that the government is exploiting the “disastrous humanitarian and financial situation” of the applicants. They highlight the irony of offering financial inducements to individuals who were initially deemed vulnerable and granted provisional acceptance due to their precarious circumstances, a decision predicated on the urgent need for protection previously promised by Germany. The organization emphasized that fundamental human rights are not commodities and the government’s actions trivialize the lives and safety of vulnerable individuals.
The initiative has ignited a political firestorm, triggering accusations that the German government is prioritizing bureaucratic expediency over ethical considerations and the safety of those seeking refuge. Critics are questioning the long-term consequences of such a policy and its impact on Germany’s commitment to international humanitarian obligations.