LONDON: Britain’s refugee policy is facing increased scrutiny as Afghan allies abandoned in the exit from Kabul demand greater support and those attempting Channel crossings vow to persist.

MPs and top military personnel have accused Rishi Sunak’s government of having “no plan” and of “apathy and incompetence” in ignoring Afghan refugees who had been left behind after UK and US forces withdrew from Kabul following the Taliban takeover.

Former naval chief of staff Adm. Alan West accused the government of “incompetence” and said it was time to “pull its finger out” to provide sanctuary to those eligible for our help.

West told The Independent: “We should jolly well get on and get the Afghans over here because we have a debt of honour. Finding accommodation for people is not beyond the wit of man. It shows a certain amount of incompetence from the government.”

Around 18,000 Afghans who say they worked alongside the British are still waiting for their Afghan Relocations and Assistance Programme applications to be processed.

And some 1,950 Afghans are stuck in the country despite having been approved to come to the UK, while a further 1,400 are at British High Commission hotels in Pakistan, with only 35 relocated since December.

The failure to rescue those who supported the allied mission in Afghanistan has seen many eligible Afghans risk the treacherous Channel crossings. 

One Afghan pilot who arrived on the Kent coast last year and has now been threatened with deportation to Rwanda — part of the UK’s condemned migrant policy — has called on Sunak to “keep the (government) promise” made to Afghans who fought with the British.

Speaking on camera with The Independent, the pilot said he expected the “warm welcome of British officials” when he arrived but was informed the Home Office intended to deport him.

“I want to ask, kindly, for officials, the prime minister, to keep the promise of friendship and cooperation you made to Afghan people, especially to Afghan forces,” said the pilot, whose wife urged him to leave after his personal details were left by the UK for the Taliban to find.

“I fought against the Taliban, and I left my family, and I hope that the British government help with my family to get them out from Afghanistan.”

Such is the desperation to get out of Afghanistan that many are taking the risky route of using people smugglers to get them into the UK via the dangerous Channel crossing — including a teen denied a place on a boat which sunk last weekend.

Speaking to The Times, 19-year-old Sohbat Khan from Kabul was told at the last minute, after having paid smugglers 1,800 euros ($1,965) to cross the Channel, that there was no room.

Of the 65 people aboard, including his friend who he has had no word from, seven have been reported missing or dead after one side of the overcrowded dinghy deflated with those aboard left waiting in the waters for two hours before a passing lifeboat started a rescue operation.

Khan said he, his friend and all those on board were aware of the dangers, “but what choice do we have? We have to try to go to England” because their lives are at risk since the Taliban return.

Under the European Treaty, asylum seekers must apply in the first safe country they reach, which for Khan is Bulgaria, where he had his fingerprints taken. Similarly, Wafiullah Niazi, 21, who is in France faces being sent to Romania if he applied for asylum.

Niazi told The Times: “Why would I go to Romania? Romanian people come to France to look for a better life. Even Romanian people don’t want to live in Romania.”

Like Khan, Niazi acknowledged that making the Channel crossing was “very difficult and dangerous” but said there was no other choice; the two young men noting they would leap on the first boat able to take them.