Iraq's progress highlighted as UN calls for action on displacement
Most were uprooted during the fight against ISIS and earlier waves of violence.
Isaczai noted that Iraq has made significant progress, with more than five million people returning or resettling thanks to major efforts led from Baghdad, but thousands remain in camps and informal settlements.
Lasting solutions, he said, require not only physical return but also access to housing, services, and security.
The UN reaffirmed its commitment to working with the Iraqi government to end protracted displacement and ensure dignity and stability for affected communities.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Shafaq News
3 hours ago
- Shafaq News
KRG dismisses Baghdad moves in minority areas as 'unlawful'
Shafaq News – Erbil The Kurdistan Regional Government's Interior Ministry warned on Thursday that steps taken by Iraq's Ministry of Migration and Displacement and the Supreme Relief Committee risk altering the demographic makeup of Christian and Yazidi areas, where many displaced families remain in camps. Minority areas such as the Nineveh Plains and Sinjar are disputed territories claimed by both governments. They are home to diverse communities, including Christians (Assyrians and Chaldeans) and Yazidis, who endured atrocities during ISIS rule from 2014 to 2017. In a statement, the ministry said around 600,000 people uprooted by the ISIS assault are still awaiting conditions for a safe and dignified return, with 18 camps currently operating in the Region. It noted that the Iraqi government's meetings are aimed at preventing these groups from returning to their original towns and instead resettling them elsewhere, calling the move a form of unlawful demographic change. "Such measures contravene the Iraqi constitution, international law, UN principles, and the Geneva Conventions." The ministry called for urgent intervention, including swift implementation of the 2020 UN-brokered Sinjar Agreement — intended to normalize security, administration, and reconstruction in the district and enable Yazidis' return — alongside the appointment of a new governor and the resumption of reconstruction and basic services.
Memri
4 hours ago
- Memri
Fmr. Chairman Of Iran's Broadcasting Authority Mohammad Sarafraz: We Can Choose War – And Eventually Nuke Israel – Or We Can Conduct Negotiations With The U.S., But Both Options Are Bad; Instead, We S
Iranian official Mohammad Sarafraz, member of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace and former IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) chairman, said in an August 18, 2025 interview with Entekhab on YouTube that if Iran follows the path of war, it would not end well and could lead to a world war. He said that in the worst case, Iran might use a nuclear weapon, try to annihilate Israel, attack U.S. bases in the region, threaten European countries, and attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. In contrast, he argued, If Iran had conducted negotiations earlier, when its proxies were not so weakened and the internal crisis had not reached such dire levels, such as the collapse of its water and electricity systems, it could have negotiated on more equal terms with the United States. He added that Iran could even have scored points on the nuclear issue, whereas today negotiations with the U.S. would not be on equal terms. Sarafraz called for deep, fast, and fundamental reforms in Iran, saying Iranian society is like a body afflicted with cancer that cannot be treated with painkillers. It is worth noting that following his resignation as IRIB chairman, Sarafraz alleged that IRGC intelligence and even members of Supreme Leader Khamenei's family had intervened in the broadcaster's financial and organizational affairs. Mohammad Sarafraz: "One scenario is to turn to the path of war, to welcome war, like some movements in our country are trying to promote. The outcome will be an endless war whose outcome is unknown. This scenario will probably lead to a world war. "In the worst case scenario, Iran might use a nuclear weapon, and will try to advance its endeavor to annihilate Israel. In addition, Iran will try to attack U.S. military bases in the region, to make security threats against European countries, and to somehow shut down the Strait of Hormuz. [...] "Ultimately, and considering the accumulation of problems we are facing, I don't think this will end well at all. [...] "Another scenario is to conduct negotiations with America. If we had done this in the past, we could have benefited greatly: The pro-Iran [proxy] groups would not have taken a hit – Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Iraqis, the Yemenis, and the Palestinian groups, including Hamas, would not have reached such a pathetic state. "Iran's status and power in the region would have been much higher, and we would not have suffered domestic problems in the water and electricity systems, like we do now. Had we conducted negotiations, we could have won points in the nuclear and other issues. Now, however, negotiations with the U.S. would not be on equal terms at all. We would negotiate with someone who wants to impose his positions and will on Iran. [...] "The third path – the one which I claim our country needs to take – is one of introspection. I call it, in a nutshell, a revolution in the ruling system. In other words, there should be deep, fast, and fundamental reforms in this country. These include a reform in the constitution, a reform in our approach to things, and even a reform in the goals to which we have dragged our country. Consequently, there should be a reform in the management of the country. All of these need to happen. [...] "Our society is currently like a sick man, or like a body afflicted with cancer. This problem cannot be resolved with painkillers."
Memri
4 hours ago
- Memri
The Trump-Putin Meeting And Pseudo-Negotiations In Alaska
The Alaska summit is an event in world diplomacy shrouded in mystery and, let's face it, devoid of any apparent meaning. The awkwardness of this meeting, replete with non-verbal signals, was not only due to the obvious stiffness in front of the eyes of the world community, which was expecting, if not a ceasefire, then at least a hint of the possibility of achieving one. The problem was rooted in the logic and format of the Anchorage rendezvous: instead of first conducting painstaking work by experts and preparing a joint communiqué, the leaders exchanged firm handshakes and pompous statements. First, a symbolic rapprochement, and then... silence. These were "upside-down negotiations," without any guarantees of further execution of joint documents and development of clear solutions. The incompetence of the American delegation, disregard for expert opinion on the "Russian issue," and complete dependence on President Donald Trump's fickle mood led to a complete failure. And this despite the fact that Secretary of State Marco Rubio demonstrated signs of common sense shortly before the summit, proposing a "ceasefire – peace talks" scheme. Where did this principle go on the way to Anchorage? Russian FM Sergey Lavrov arrives in Alaska wearing "USSR" sweater (Source: X) Another Meaningless Telephone Conversation Would Have Been Enough Russian diplomats, who have long forgotten how to play a subtle diplomatic game and have mastered the rhetoric of Soviet propaganda during the Cold War, did not set the goal of reaching specific agreements. Their task was to "charm" Trump. The goal was achieved, but the question arises: Do the parties even have specialists capable of solving practical issues? This is especially important in the context of resuming the dialogue on arms control and nuclear non-proliferation – this requires completely different skills than waving a sweater with the inscription "USSR" or threatening statements from the UN rostrum. Have these skills been lost? And are they needed at all? In fact, with such a result of pseudo-negotiations, it was not necessary to travel so far – another meaningless telephone conversation would have been enough. Expectations fueled by the media collapsed overnight. Society was thirsty for peace. Peace did not come. Even on terms that would not suit someone. The Anchorage summit became a reflection of the crisis of modern diplomacy, where form prevails over content, and political populism replaces painstaking work on building trust and finding compromises. Instead of a deep analysis of existing problems and developing a roadmap, the parties limited themselves to a superficial exchange of pleasantries, behind which was hidden the absence of a common strategy and understanding of the prospects for further cooperation. Elvira Vikhareva Ideological Cliches The meeting in Anchorage revealed not only the lack of political will for real changes, but also a shortage of professional personnel capable of conducting complex negotiations and developing mutually beneficial solutions. Disregard for expert opinion, the replacement of reasoned discussion with ideological cliches and the desire for short-term political dividends led to the summit turning into an empty formality that did not bring any tangible results. In an era of global challenges that require coordinated efforts and constructive dialogue, such an approach to international relations seems extremely short-sighted. Without a serious reassessment of values and the rejection of outdated stereotypes, the world risks finding itself in a situation where even the most complex problems remain unresolved, and opportunities for cooperation are missed. The Anchorage summit should be a lesson for future generations of diplomats and politicians, a reminder that only painstaking work based on mutual respect and a desire for compromise can lead to real results. Without this, any meetings and negotiations are doomed to remain just an empty phrase, unable to change the world for the better. *Elvira Vikhareva is a renowned Russian opposition politician based in Russia. In 2023, she was poisoned with heavy metal salts.
