A top Taliban official offers amnesty to Afghans who fled the country and urges them to return
A top Taliban official said on Saturday that all Afghans who fled the country after the collapse of the former Western-backed government are free to return home, promising they would not be harmed if they come back.
Taliban Prime Minister Mohammad Hassan Akhund made the amnesty offer in his message for the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, also known as the 'Feast of Sacrifice.'
The offer comes days after U.S. President Donald Trump announced a sweeping travel ban on 12 countries, including Afghanistan. The measure largely bars Afghans hoping to resettle in the United States permanently as well as those hoping to go to the U.S. temporarily, such as for university study.
Trump also suspended a core refugee program in January, all but ending support for Afghans who had allied with the U.S. and leaving tens of thousands of them stranded.
Afghans in neighboring Pakistan who are awaiting resettlement are also dealing with a deportation drive by the Islamabad government to get them out of the country. Almost a million have left Pakistan since October 2023 to avoid arrest and expulsion.
Akhund's holiday message was posted on the social platform X.
'Afghans who have left the country should return to their homeland,' he said. 'Nobody will harm them.'
'Come back to your ancestral land and live in an atmosphere of peace,' he added, and instructed officials to properly manage services for returning refugees and to ensure they were given shelter and support.
He also used the occasion to criticize the media for making what he said were 'false judgements' about Afghanistan's Taliban rulers and their policies.
'We must not allow the torch of the Islamic system to be extinguished,' he said. 'The media should avoid false judgments and should not minimize the accomplishments of the system. While challenges exist, we must remain vigilant.'
The Taliban swept into the capital Kabul and seized most of Afghanistan in a blitz in mid-August 2021 as the U.S. and NATO forces were in the last weeks of their pullout from the country after 20 years of war.
The offensive prompted a mass exodus, with tens of thousands of Afghans thronging the airport in chaotic scenes, hoping for a flight out on the U.S. military airlift. People also fled across the border, to neighboring Iran and Pakistan.
Among those escaping the new Taliban rulers were also former government officials, journalists, activists, those who had helped the U.S. during its campaign against the Taliban.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Crunch talks with President Trump over a US-UK trade deal in doubt over new Chinese ‘super-embassy' in London, with the White House said to be 'very concerned'
Crunch talks over a UK trade deal with Donald Trump have been thrown into jeopardy by plans for a new Chinese 'super- embassy' in London, diplomatic sources have revealed. White House sources said the US Government was 'very concerned' about the risk the embassy posed to America's interests in the City as a result of Beijing 's spies potentially tapping into sensitive financial cables. As a result, Washington's trade deal negotiators are understood to have asked for a ' China lock' as part of the talks, which would guarantee the development will not present a security threat to the US. American officials are now also more concerned about the risk of sharing high-grade intelligence with Britain. A source said: 'The issue has led to undoubted tension during the talks. The British have been desperate to play down the concerns, even though their own intelligence services have made their worries clear.' It comes as British negotiators are racing to implement the trade deal struck in principle between Mr Trump and Sir Keir Starmer, which would exempt the UK from crippling steel tariffs imposed by the US President. No 10 controversially revived plans for the new development on the site of the Royal Mint buildings by the Tower of London, despite them being blocked by the previous government after warnings from MI5 and Scotland Yard. The Bank of England has also warned No 10 about the risks of allowing it to be built close to sensitive financial centres in the City. Mapping data shows that the proposed site for the embassy lies directly between financial hubs in the City and Canary Wharf and close to three major data centres, including the Stock Exchange. Earlier this year, The Mail on Sunday revealed that planning documents for the embassy included 'spy dungeons' – two suites of anonymous basement rooms and a tunnel, with their purpose redacted for security reasons. The Government has refused to disclose whether it is backing the plans in order to boost trading relations with the Chinese. Within a fortnight of Rachel Reeves returning from an official visit to China earlier this year, both Scotland Yard and Tower Hamlets Council mysteriously dropped their objections to the project. Shadow levelling up secretary Kevin Hollinrake has said the lack of information about the 'dungeons' was 'striking', adding: 'There is a chilling prospect that it could be used for the abduction, intimidation or torture of anti-Chinese dissidents living in the UK.' The Chinese have dismissed claims the embassy could be an espionage hub, saying: 'Anti-China elements are always keen on slandering and attacking China.' Intelligence activity by Chinese spies is said to be at an all-time-high in the UK, with agents believed to be eavesdropping on political figures by bugging buildings in Whitehall and park benches.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
If I were Rachel Reeves: Hunt, Zahawi and Mel Stride give their advice
Sir Lots of people think being chancellor is like being Santa Claus with lots of goodies to dole out. The reality is rather different as both Rachel Reeves and I have found out. As I explain in my new book Can We Be Great Again? the biggest difference between good and bad governments is the extent to which you manage to carve out space for long-term decisions as opposed to daily firefighting. Here are the three crucial things I will be looking out for when it comes to the long term. First, given the austerity cuts about to be imposed on the police and criminal justice system, are we going to invest in modernising them so they really can deliver better outcomes with less money? Police officers spend up to eight hours a week on unnecessary admin tasks. They are crying out for modern IT systems which are normally the first casualty of any spending negotiations. If we want services to improve, things that unlock greater efficiency should be top and not bottom of a government's list. Second, when Europe is at war, you cannot commit to a programme that costs 3 per cent of GDP and only provide 2.5 per cent in funding — as the government appears to have done. That is a scandalous and dangerous black hole if ever there was one — not least a fortnight before the Nato summit. I was at the table when Trump nearly pulled the US out of Nato in 2018 so we are taking a big risk. But if we plug the gap, France and Germany are likely to as well. If we don't, and the US pulls out of Nato, it will not be 3 per cent we are arguing over but double that. Keir Starmer has shown he can be an international statesman — now really is the moment we need him to do the right thing. Finally, we have to avoid the doom loop of ever higher taxes creating ever lower growth. That means longer term supply-side policies to boost our growth rate. But in the short-term the only game in town is welfare reform as I explain in my new book. Getting the working age benefit bill to 2019 levels saves £49 billion — more than enough for 3 per cent of GDP on defence and to avoid tax rises. It would also be far better for people on benefits to be in work. Welfare reform isn't easy for Labour but with a large majority and four years in the mandate, if not now when? Nadhim Zahawi Rachel Reeves is in a difficult position. As the only cabinet member with real private sector experience, she should by now understand the difficulties businesses are facing because of the government's actions, not to mention families. Crucial to fixing this is to be able to reduce the tax burden, and that requires getting serious about growth. That will come from getting out of the way, deregulating and allowing supply-side reforms, but it also means attracting investment rather than driving it away. The closure of the non-doms regime has been a catastrophe for this, signalling that Britain isn't interested in prosperity. A flat-rate charge for wealthy individuals and entrepreneurs, as they do in Italy, would be a smart move, and worth eating humble pie over. Rome has had 2,200 multimillionaires settle there — raising hundreds of millions in tax and investment for the Italian people. If the chancellor can tempt them to the UK through a mix of a more welcoming tax regime, and a pledge to tackle law and order concerns, we could be back in business. Even before counting their ingenuity and investment, if we attracted just 3,000 new wealthy residents to Britain, charging them £400,000 per year to have an equivalent of non-dom tax status, she would be able to reverse the winter fuel allowance cut. Taking this further, and aiming for the sort of numbers America is hoping to attract with their Golden Visa programme, and she could do anything from abolishing the hated inheritance tax, which does so much to destroy family businesses and long-term investment in Britain, to an immediate increase in defence to 3 per cent of GDP or more. These are popular, easy fiscal policies which would unlock so much investment and revenue for the government. All Reeves needs to do is convince Labour not to hate wealth creators, which I grant may be a steep political challenge. Nadim Zahawi was Conservative chancellor between July and September 2022 Sir Mel Stride If I were in Rachel Reeves's shoes next week, I would do things very differently. First, I'd level with the public. Our country faces serious economic constraints and Labour's reckless policies are only deepening those problems — high debt, sluggish growth, rising cost of living. LEON NEAL/GETTY IMAGES The chancellor will no doubt tell us she is exercising judicious fiscal discipline, without mentioning that most of the new projects and programmes she is announcing are paid for with hundreds of billions in extra borrowing. I'd focus on what actually moves the dial. Productivity, public service reform and fiscal responsibility. That means rooting out waste, and being clear-eyed about what government can and cannot afford. And I wouldn't be afraid to say 'no'. Sometimes leadership means doing the difficult thing, not the easy or popular one. The scale of the spending being set out next week was confirmed in March, before the chancellor began being forced into embarrassing U-turns on welfare. We've seen what happens when fiscal credibility is lost — I would never let that happen again. So if I were the chancellor, I'd offer a serious plan. Rebuild stability, drive growth and restore trust. No gimmicks. Just hard truths and a credible path forward for our country.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trump warns of 'consequences' for Elon after he 'disrespected the office of president'
President Donald Trump warned that Elon Musk would face 'very serious consequences' if he was to start bankrolling Democratic candidates. Their relationship disintegrated earlier this week as the former allies battled it out on social media after disagreeing on Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Speaking with NBC News' Kristen Welker on Saturday, Trump was asked what he would do if Musk crossed the political aisle and donated to Democrats. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that. He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that', he told out the outlet. Musk, who is worth $330 billion, was a major contributor to Trump's presidential campaign - spending at least $250 million in supporting his race for the White House last year. Asked specifically if he thought his relationship with the mega-billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX is over, Trump responded: 'I would assume so, yeah.' 'I'm too busy doing other things. I won an election in a landslide. I gave him a lot of breaks, long before this happened,' he said. 'I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him', Trump added. Musk already said that he would be cutting back on spending on political campaigns ahead of next year's midterm elections. The president also accused Musk of being 'disrespectful to the office of the president.' 'I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful,' Trump said. 'You could not disrespect the office of the president.' During their spat, Musk even suggested in a since-deleted post that Trump had been named in the government files involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Responding to that remark, Trump said: 'That's called "old news," that's been old news, that has been talked about for years. 'Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it. It's old news.' The two dialed back their barbs at each other by Friday night, with both saying that they wished each other well. But by that point, the damage to their relationship looked to be done. Following the outbreak of their feud, Trump and his allies have said Musk turned on the bill because it cuts subsidies for electric vehicles. Musk has said he doesn't need them anyway. The bill is estimated to add another $3.8 trillion to the national debt, which currently stands at a whopping $36 trillion. Musk went public with his criticism in a series of posts on X, arguing that the spending would wipe out the efforts of his DOGE team. Then, on Thursday, when Trump was supposed to be hosting the new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, he was asked about Musk's recent criticism. From there the dam broke. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more, I was surprised,' Trump told reporters. The president suggested that Musk was angry - not over the bill ballooning the deficit - but because the Trump administration has pulled back on electric vehicle mandates, which negatively impacted Tesla, and replaced a Musk-approved nominee to lead NASA, which could hinder SpaceX's government contracts. 'And you know, Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles, and they're having a hard time the electric vehicles and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy,' Trump said. 'I know that disturbed him.' Over the weekend, Trump pulled the nomination of Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Isaacman worked alongside Musk at SpaceX. Reports have since emerged that the nomination of Isaacman being rescinded was in part because of the interference of Sergio Gor, the director of the Presidential Personnel Office. The New York Times had first reported that both Musk and some of those inside the White House had pinned the blame for the dust-up on Gor. Musk and Gor have had a sour relationship for months, stemming from what Axios described as Gor's 'resentment' of Musk's involvement in personnel issues. The Washington Post also reported that Gor had made it clear that he would find a way to get back at Musk, which turned out to be Isaacman's nomination. Trump had said he rescinded the nomination due to donations he had made to the Democrats over the years. Vice President JD Vance said in an interview tried to downplay the feud. He said Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after Trump, but called him an 'emotional guy' getting frustrated. 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that´s not possible now because he´s gone so nuclear,' Vance said. Vance said that Musk´s DOGE, which sought to cut government spending and laid off thousands of workers, was 'really good.' He had made the comments as he spoke with comedian Theo Von, which was taped on Thursday as Musk's posts were unfurling on X. Von showed the veep Musk´s claim that Trump´s administration hasn´t released all the records related to Epstein because Trump is mentioned in them. Vance responded to that, saying, 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn´t do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Vance said in response to another post shared by Musk calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced with Vance. 'It´s totally insane. The president is doing a good job.' Vance also defended the bill that has drawn Musk's ire, and said its central goal was not to cut spending but to extend the 2017 tax cuts approved in Trump's first term.
