No Higher Ground, No Open Sea: Displacement in the Maldives and Afghanistan

By Eleez Omar

Climate change, conflict, economic stability, and political insecurity are influencing patterns of displacement across the globe. Even though displacement is typically discussed as a universal humanitarian issue, geography plays a very important role in determining how states experience vulnerability. The realities facing island nations differ greatly from those confronting landlocked states, especially when it comes to borders, access to resources, migration pathways, and long-term survival. 

For organizations focused on displacement and human security, understanding these geographical differences is more and more important. Small island developing states such as the Maldives face existential threats tied to rising sea levels, environmental degradation, and climate-induced migration. While, on the other hand, landlocked countries such as Afghanistan confront displacement through armed conflict, political instability, economic isolation and limited access to regional mobility networks. 

Even though both categories of states experience profound vulnerability, the nature of that vulnerability could not be more different. Island states tend to face threats connected to environmental disappearance and isolation, where landlocked countries grapple with geopolitical dependence, border insecurity, and restricted economic access. It is important to look at these differences and understand how it offers insight into how geography shapes displacement and state behavior, especially in the 21st century. 

The Maldives and the Geography of Climate Vulnerability  

The Maldives represents one of the clearest examples of how geography can intensify climate-related displacement risks. It is an ocean state composed of nearly 1200 low-lying coral islands in the Indian Ocean and the country sits at an average elevation of 1.5 meters above sea level, which makes it one of the most environmentally vulnerable countries in the world. 

Unlike larger continental states, the Maldives possesses limited land area, little agricultural capacity, and few opportunities for internal relocation. In many countries experiencing environmental degradation, populations migrate inland or toward urban centers. But, for the Maldives, the possibility of relocation is constrained by geography itself. There is no so-called “higher ground” within the country. 

This creates a unique form of existential insecurity. Climate change in the Maldives is not just an environmental issue, it is very much tied to questions of sovereignty and national survival. Rising sea levels, erosion, saltwater intrusion, coral bleaching, and increasingly severe weather threaten housing, freshwater access, as well as fisheries and tourism, which are sectors that the country heavily relies on. 

Climate induced migration in island states occurs gradually rather than suddenly. Families might relocate from outer islands to the capital city of Male due to declining economic opportunities and environmental degradation. Over time, this produces overcrowding, urban stress, and social inequality within already limited spaces. 

At the international level, the Maldives has attempted to transform vulnerability into diplomatic influence. Through organizations such as the Alliance of Small Island States and the Climate Vulnerable Forum, the Maldives has consistently advocated for stronger climate action and greater recognition of climate displacement within international policymaking. Former President Mohamed Nasheed famously drew global attention to this issue through symbolic climate diplomacy, including the 2009 underwater cabinet meeting. 

This reflects an important dynamic among island nations, this being that geography can create vulnerability and diplomacy leverage at the same time. Because small island states tend to be framed at the “frontlines” of climate change, they can exercise moral authority in international negotiations despite their limited military or economic power. 

Afghanistan and the Politics of Landlocked Vulnerability 

While island nations face environmental isolation, landlocked states experience a different form of vulnerability. Afghanistan is a case that shows how geography can contribute to political instability, economic dependence, and protracted displacement crises. 

For decades, Afghanistan has experienced cycles of armed conflict, foreign intervention, economic collapse, and humanitarian emergencies that have displaced millions internally and across borders. According to international organizations, Afghanistan remains one of the world’s largest displacement crises, with millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees living in neighboring countries, namely Pakistan and Iran. 

Afghanistan’s displacement crisis is rooted largely in conflict and government challenges. Yet geography still plays a major role. As a landlocked country, Afghanistan depends heavily on neighboring states for trade access, humanitarian aid routes, and migration corridors. Political tensions with surrounding countries therefore have direct consequences for mobility and survival. 

Without direct access to maritime trade routes, Afghanistan depends on transit cooperation from neighbors, making the country vulnerable to regional instability and diplomatic tensions. Economic underdevelopment, limited infrastructure, and restricted market access contribute to unemployment and poverty conditions that can worsen displacement pressures. 

At the same time, landlocked states may experience displacement differently because borders remain physically accessible. Afghan displacement has historically involved large-scale cross border movement into Pakistan and Iran. These migration routes create both opportunities and vulnerability. Refugees may access temporary protection abroad, but they also face legal insecurity, deportation risks, discrimination, and inconsistent humanitarian support. 

Unlike the Maldives, where climate threats raise questions about the future existence of the state itself, Afghanistan’s crisis centers more heavily on state fragility and political violence. Nevertheless, both cases demonstrate how geography shapes the options available to displaced populations. 

Comparing Island and Landlocked Displacement 

Comparing the Maldives and Afghanistan reveals important distinctions in how geography influences displacement patterns and state responses. First, island states often experience displacement as a question of permanence and survival. Climate threats in countries such as the Maldives challenge whether communities will be able to remain on their territory in the long term. In extreme scenarios, entire populations may eventually require international relocation frameworks that currently do not exist adequately within international law.

Landlocked states, by contrast, often face cyclical and conflict-driven displacement. Movement may occur internally or across neighboring borders depending on shifts in violence, governance, or economic conditions. While these crises can persist for decades, they are typically framed as political and humanitarian emergencies rather than existential threats to territorial existence.

Second, mobility functions differently in each context. For island populations, migration is constrained by physical isolation and transportation limitations. Relocation frequently requires international travel, external agreements, and significant financial resources. In landlocked contexts, movement across porous borders may occur more rapidly, although often under dangerous or precarious conditions.

Third, international attention differs considerably. Small island states have increasingly succeeded in positioning climate vulnerability at the center of global discussions. Their visibility within climate diplomacy has grown substantially over the past two decades. By contrast, displacement in landlocked conflict zones often becomes normalized within international politics, leading to donor fatigue and inconsistent media coverage.

Despite these differences, important similarities remain. Both island and landlocked states experience forms of dependency shaped by geography. Both rely heavily on international cooperation. Both face difficulties protecting displaced populations with limited resources. And in both contexts, displacement disproportionately affects marginalized communities with the least economic and political power.

Rethinking Displacement Through Geography

Displacement is often analyzed through political or humanitarian frameworks alone, but geography deserves greater attention within these discussions. Island and landlocked states demonstrate that physical geography can shape everything from economic resilience and migration pathways to diplomatic behavior and human security.

For organizations such as Displaced International, this distinction matters because durable solutions cannot be universalized across fundamentally different geographic realities. Climate adaptation strategies suitable for island nations may not address the challenges confronting conflict-affected landlocked states. Similarly, refugee protection frameworks designed around cross-border migration may fail to capture the realities of slow-onset climate displacement.

As climate change accelerates and geopolitical instability continues, geography will likely play an even greater role in shaping future displacement patterns. Understanding these dynamics is essential not only for humanitarian response, but also for international law, development planning, and global governance.

The experiences of the Maldives and Afghanistan reveal that geography is not simply a backdrop to displacement. It is one of the forces actively shaping who becomes displaced, how displacement occurs, and what possibilities exist for protection, adaptation, and survival.

The writer is a research and advocacy intern, covering climate displacement and South Asia at Displaced International.