The exclusion of young people living in Afghanistan from a position claiming to represent Afghan youth is inexcusable. Consultation does not equal representative authority. The diaspora representative still decides who to consult, which concerns merit attention, and how those accounts are interpreted and presented internationally. This is all done through their own lens and experiences. It is essentially a form of gatekeeping, not a substitute for direct representation. “security risks”: What precisely is the danger in discussing issues like Pakistani airstrikes, unemployment, floods, environmental degradation, economic development, or the everyday needs of Afghan youth? Where genuine risks exist, why deny young Afghans the right to assess those risks and decide for themselves whether to participate? The treatment of Madina Mahboobi after her UN appearance also raises an uncomfortable question about whether the concern is solely for the safety of Afghans inside the country, or whether certain perspectives become unwelcome when they challenge established political narratives. Visa restrictions and travel difficulties are obstacles that institutions committed to meaningful representation should seek to overcome, not use to justify exclusion. Select qualified young Afghans from within the country, advocate for their participation, and pursue remote arrangements when necessary. Otherwise, the process risks preserving international platforms for voices outside Afghanistan while denying those living with the consequences of international decisions the opportunity to speak for themselves.

The Afghan Youth Representative to the UN is supposed to represent a generation facing a multitude of challenges inside Afghanistan, yet not a single young person residing in the country is eligible to apply. This is not simply a selection process that favors the diaspora. It is the complete exclusion of the population whose interests the position claims to represent.