At least 1.2 million Afghans forced to return from Iran and Pakistan this year — UN
ISLAMABAD: At least 1.2 million Afghans have been forced to return from Iran and Pakistan this year, the UN refugee agency said Saturday, warning that repatriations on a massive scale have the potential to destabilize the fragile situation in Afghanistan.
Iran and Pakistan in 2023 launched separate campaigns to expel foreigners they said were living in the country illegally. They set deadlines and threatened them with deportation if they didn't leave. The two governments deny targeting Afghans, who have fled their homeland to escape war, poverty or Taliban rule.
The UN high commissioner for refugees said that of the 1.2 million returning Afghans, more than half had come from Iran following a March 20 government deadline for them to leave voluntarily or face expulsion.
Iran has deported more than 366,000 Afghans this year, including refugees and people in refugee-like situations, according to the agency.
Iran's 12-day war with Israel also has driven departures. The highest number of returns was on June 26, when 36,100 Afghans crossed the border in one day.
'Afghan families are being uprooted once again, arriving with scant belongings, exhausted, hungry, scared about what awaits them in a country many of them have never even set foot in,' said Arafat Jamal, the UNHCR representative in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
He said women and girls are particularly worried, as they fear the restrictions on freedom of movement and basic rights such as education and employment.
More than half Afghanistan relies on humanitarian assistance. But opposition to Taliban policies and widespread funding cuts are worsening the situation, with aid agencies and nongovernmental organizations cutting back on basic services like education and health care.
IRAN URGES FOREIGNERS TO LEAVE QUICKLY
Iran's attorney general, Mohammad Movahedi Azad, said Saturday that foreigners in the country illegally should leave as soon as possible or face prosecution, state media reported.
'Foreign nationals, especially brothers and sisters from Afghanistan whom we have hosted for years, help us [so] that illegal individuals leave Iran in the shortest period,' the official IRNA news agency quoted Azad as saying.
Iranian authorities said in April that out of more than 6 million Afghans, up to 2.5 million were in the country illegally.
Iran's top diplomat in Kabul, Ali Reza Bikdeli, visited the Dogharoun border crossing with Afghanistan and promised to facilitate the repatriation of Afghans, state TV reported.
Iranians have complained about the increasing presence of Afghans in recent months, with some accusing them of spying for Israel since the outbreak of the war.
TALIBAN PLEDGE AMNESTY
Earlier this month, on the religious festival of Eid Al-Adha, the Taliban prime minister said all Afghans who fled the country after the collapse of the former Western-backed government were free to return, promising they would be safe.
'Afghans who have left the country should return to their homeland,' Mohammad Hassan Akhund said in a message on X. 'Nobody will harm them. Come back to your ancestral land and live in an atmosphere of peace.'
On Saturday, a high-ranking ministerial delegation traveled to western Herat province to meet some of the Afghans returning from Iran.
The officials pledged 'swift action to address the urgent needs of the returnees and ensure that essential services and support are provided to ease their reintegration,' according to a statement from the Taliban deputy spokesman Hamdullah Fitrat on X.
People get food, temporary accommodation and access to health care upon their return, said Ahmadullah Muttaqi, the director of information and culture in Herat. Everyone receives 2,000 Afghanis, or $28.50, in cash and is taken free of charge to their home provinces.
'Upon arrival, they are housed in designated camps until permanent housing is arranged, as residential townships are currently under construction in every province for them,' he told The Associated Press.
Meanwhile, Pakistani authorities have set a June 30 deadline for some 1.3 million Afghans to leave. Pakistan aims to expel a total of 3 million Afghans this year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Iran says no threat to UN nuclear watchdog chief, inspectors after call for execution
Iran said Sunday it posed no threat to the head of the UN nuclear watchdog and its inspectors after an Iranian newspaper called for the execution of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi. 'No, there is not any threat' against the inspectors or the director general, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said in an interview with US broadcaster CBS when asked about calls in an ultra-conservative newspaper for the agency's chief to be executed as a spy. The ambassador said inspectors in Iran were 'in safe conditions.' On Saturday, Argentina condemned what it said were threats against Argentine Grossi after Iran rejected his request to visit nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the United States. Tehran has accused Grossi of 'betrayal of his duties' for not condemning the Israeli and US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites this month, and Iranian lawmakers voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA which he leads. On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on X that 'Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent.' Iran has said it believes an IAEA resolution on June 12 that accused Iran of ignoring its nuclear obligations served as an 'excuse' for the 12-day war Israel launched on June 13.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Is UK government principled or realist in the Middle East?
The UK's Labour government was probably thankful that Donald Trump found a way to strike Iran's nuclear facilities without using British bases. After the June 22 attacks occurred, London was quick to emphasize that, though it had been informed in advance, the UK played no role. In the run-up, British officials were concerned that any American request to use the UK base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia would put Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a difficult position. While Britain would feel obliged to aid its most important ally, there were questions over the legality of Washington's strikes. Immediately afterward, David Lammy, the UK's foreign secretary, declined to comment on the legal concerns, stating they were 'for the Americans to discuss.' But the question of international law and the UK's approach to the Middle East is not insignificant. As a lawyer and former head of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, many expected Starmer to place considerable emphasis on upholding international law and the so-called rules-based order when he came to office. Indeed, Starmer's attorney general, the UK government's chief legal adviser, told the BBC recently that international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of London's foreign policy. Lammy, another lawyer, stated when he came to power that Labour would pursue 'progressive realism' in office — using realist means to pursue progressive ends. But the Middle East, especially Israel's actions, have at times appeared a blind spot for this supposedly progressive foreign policy. For all its rhetoric, is Starmer's government ultimately more realist than principled in the region? During its year in office so far, Starmer's Labour government has been keen to emphasize its principles when it comes to the Middle East. Unlike some states like Hungary, which withdrew from the International Criminal Court to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to visit, Starmer's government has stated that, were the Israeli premier to enter the UK, he would be arrested in accordance with the court's warrant. Similarly, in recent months, London has stepped up its criticism of Israel's war in Gaza and initiated legal measures. These have included canceling free trade talks with Israel and 30 arms licenses, as well as sanctioning two Israeli ministers. In May, Lammy stated that Israel's recent actions in Gaza were 'an affront to the values of the British people,' and that ministers' calls to expel Palestinians were 'monstrous' and 'extremist.' During Israel's recent war with Iran, London similarly stuck to its principles of promoting a diplomatic not an armed solution — in contrast to its allies in Israel and the US. As Israel launched its attacks on Iran, Starmer's office released a statement emphasizing 'the need for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution, in the interests of stability in the region.' However, critics complain that the Labour government's principles in the Middle East appear quite elastic and inconsistent. While calling for Israel to de-escalate, Starmer also emphasized Israel's right to 'self-defense,' offering a degree of legitimacy to the attacks — 'self-defense' being the criteria needed under the UN Charter to legally justify military action. Critics complain that the Labour government's principles in the Middle East appear quite elastic and inconsistent. Christopher Phillips Similarly, while London has become increasingly critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, for a long time it was more supportive. As leader of the opposition, Starmer caused waves by saying Israel had 'the right' to cut off water and power to Gaza, despite this being considered illegal collective punishment by many international lawyers. And lawyers supporting the Palestinians have repeatedly challenged the legality of the UK continuing to supply Israel with arms — with the 320 continuing licenses far greater than the 30 that were suspended. Though there is always legal ambiguity with these issues, London's apparent unwillingness to seriously reduce arms supplies, despite its foreign secretary calling Israel's actions in Gaza 'monstrous,' suggests its commitment to principles in the region can be selective. Yet the government's supporters would offer a more nuanced take. In his interview with the BBC, Attorney General Richard Hermer, a long-term friend of Starmer, said that international law was 'important in and of itself, but it's also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we're trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country.' The suggestion is that the latter point, making life better for Britons, is the ultimate priority. Principles like upholding and promoting international law are important, but not at any expense. Labour must balance these principles with other concerns. At home, the Middle East is a hugely divisive issue. In 2024's general election, Labour lost five parliamentary seats to candidates overtly criticizing Starmer's Gaza policy, while the issue has repeatedly caused ruptures within the party itself. A significant number of MPs on the left wing of the party were vocally against the UK playing any role in the US strikes on Iran. Internationally, the UK is in a relatively weak position. Its primary concern is facing down Russia and pursuing rearmament alongside European allies in response to an apparent American reluctance to come to their aid. He is also determined to keep US President Donald Trump onside and to position the UK as a reliable friend to the White House. Grandstanding on international law to either Israel or the US risks damaging that relationship. The Middle East is low down the UK's list of core interests, perhaps explaining why London is often selective about when it wants to push international law — only doing so when it does not clash with core interests. Perhaps this selectiveness is what Lammy regards as progressive realism, but it is not clear whether this is having any effect in the Middle East or whether the US and Israel are more likely to adhere to progressive principles because of Britain's actions. A more cynical read is that Labour are being realist progressives: led by principle when they can but ultimately falling back on realpolitik when it comes to the crunch. The risk, of course, is that key actors not standing up for international laws and rules at these crucial moments means they wither away, making the world more dangerous. In such cases, there are fewer progressive opportunities and realism becomes the only option.
Leaders
2 hours ago
- Leaders
Germany Announces Full Support for Israel after Iran War
In his first visit to Tel Aviv since Israel-Iran war, German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt unveiled full support for Israel on Sunday, according to Arab News. Dobrindt visited the site of an Iranian missile strike near Tel Aviv that killed nine people including three children. 'We must deepen our support for Israel,' Dobrindt said. Meanwhile, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar described the German visit as a gesture of 'solidarity' calling on the international community to reimpose sanctions on Iran. Israel Iran Conflict On June 13, Israel launched a wave of airstrikes on Iran under the name of Operation Rising Lion. The military campaign targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and killed top military commanders and nuclear scientists. As a response, Iran launched a retaliatory wave of missiles against Israel and targeted Tel Aviv. Israel also killed several Iranian nuclear scientists in line with its goal to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Crucially, Israel announced that it was hit by over 50 missiles during the 12-day war with Iran, resulting in 28 deaths. However, the real extent of the damage may never be known because of strict media restrictions. The Israeli airstrikes on Iran killed at least 627 people and injured approximately 4,900. US Intervention On June 22, the US became directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran after launching airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. In his first public statement since the announcement of the ceasefire, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday that the US intervention in the war was basically driven by its feeling 'that if it did not intervene, the Zionist regime would be utterly destroyed.' However, the US had not achieved any gains from this war, he added. Related Topics: Iran Retains Some of Its Nuclear Capabilities after US Strikes: Reports US, Pakistan Discuss 'Durable Peace' between Israel, Iran Russia 'Condemns, Regrets' US Strikes on Iran Short link : Post Views: 10
