First published in Alliance magazine on 12 March 2025.
The scramble to evacuate Afghan partners as the Taliban seized Kabul in August 2021 was a watershed moment for global philanthropy and civil society. The threat the militant group posed to human rights defenders and other civic actors in Afghanistan was significant and imminent. Specialists from protection organisations such as Open Briefing and informal networks of veterans and private security companies worked tirelessly alongside the official airlift, often supported by private philanthropy. So too did the staff and volunteers of many international nonprofits and foundations – most of whom had never before managed security crises or evacuations. This effort undoubtedly saved many hundreds of lives.
The trend began during the coup in Myanmar a few months earlier and was further cemented during the invasion of Ukraine the following year. But it was the scale of the Afghan evacuations that left a lasting impact, broadening the range of international partners now responding to threats against activists and deepening their reliance on international relocation. This is taking place against a backdrop of shrinking civic space and increasing attacks on human rights defenders, leading to ever greater calls for assistance. Open Briefing experienced a 20 percent increase in requests for safety and well-being support last year and in response provided over 6,000 hours of support across 100 countries.
The protection continuum
International relocation is only one tool in a wider spectrum of support. This ‘protection continuum’ runs through holistic security risk management, collective protection, solidarity and advocacy, international protective accompaniment, international respite, and domestic relocation, before considering international relocation. The further along the continuum, the greater the impact on the activist and their community, and the greater the resources required.
Foundations and philanthropists have a critical role along this continuum. Early intervention often requires less resources but is more effective and less disruptive. For example, funding holistic security support can help activists at risk build resilience against physical, digital, and psychological threats. This includes funding digital security training, trauma counselling, and emergency response plans. Such measures can mitigate risks and reduce the likelihood that relocation will ever become necessary.
Open Briefing can usually address threats effectively using holistic security risk management, though we must sometimes consider additional strategies. Occasionally, the severity of the threat to an activist’s safety may be too great to manage through other strategies. At this point, we might consider international relocation; however, it is not a panacea and can be the hardest strategy to implement successfully.
Threats to activists in exile
Even if initially successful, the sustainability of relocating an activist depends on the support available to help them rebuild their lives and address ongoing threats to colleagues and family members who remain at home.
Safety and security. International relocation is not without physical risks. Crossing a border while leaving the home country is a common risk ‘pinch point’, particularly for those under surveillance. Travelling outside safe and legal routes can be dangerous and result in deportation or being stuck in limbo. Even once safely relocated, risks can include anti-immigrant violence or threats by agents of their home state. Adversaries may also target colleagues or family members at home to maintain pressure on those who have relocated.
Wellbeing and resilience. The fear of attacks or reprisals against colleagues or family members causes significant stress for activists in exile. Knowing others face danger at home while they live in safety can lead to survivor’s guilt. Many live with grief and trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as a result of being targeted or losing loved ones. Cultural isolation and financial challenges can further undermine well-being, with many activists in exile reporting suicidal thoughts.
Digital and information security. Often overlooked following relocation are ongoing threats of surveillance and other risks to information security. Activists in exile may be high-profile and well trusted within diaspora networks and by those at home. They may become central nodes for sharing connections and information within social movements, making them valuable sources of intelligence for adversaries or conduits to compromise communities. They may also become easier to target as they let their guard down once the immediate dangers are removed.
Call to action
Protecting human rights defenders and other civic actors at risk demands comprehensive strategies that go beyond international relocation. Although the additional attention foundations and philanthropists are devoting to the safety and wellbeing of activists is welcome, it is crucial that these efforts are channelled in the right direction. The challenges of international relocation and the existence of other options in the protection continuum should make it a strategy of last – not first – resort.
Foundations and philanthropists need to lead by example in resourcing holistic security risk management and collective protection efforts. This is essential to keep activists safe in their home countries and ensure their continued effectiveness if forced into exile. Failure to do so risks undermining social movements and creating whole civil societies in exile.
Read Open Briefing’s report Rethinking International Relocation: A Strategy of Last Resort and Strengthening Support for Activists in Exile.
Chris Abbott is the founder and CEO of Open Briefing. He is also a director of Peace Brigades International and an adviser to the Funders Initiative for Civil Society.