Afghanistan has its ‘sharpest surge' ever of child malnutrition, UN agency says
Afghanistan is seeing its sharpest-ever surge of child malnutrition, the World Food Programme said Monday, adding it needed $539 million to help the country's most vulnerable families.
Almost 10 million people, a quarter of Afghanistan's population, face acute food insecurity. One in three children is stunted.
The WFP said the rise in child malnutrition was linked to a drop in emergency food assistance over the past two years because of dwindling donor support. In April, the administration of US President Donald Trump cut off food aid to Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest countries.
The US had been the largest funder of the WFP, providing $4.5 billion of the $9.8 billion in donations last year. Previous US administrations viewed such aid as serving national security by alleviating conflict, poverty, extremism and curbing migration.
Food insecurity in Afghanistan is being worsened by mass returns from neighboring countries, which are deporting foreigners they say are living there illegally.
The WFP said it has supported 60,000 Afghans returning from Iran in the last two months, a fraction of those crossing the border.
'Going forward, the WFP does not have sufficient funding to cover the returnee response at this time and requires $15 million to assist all eligible returnees from Iran,' said WFP Communications Officer Ziauddin Safi. He said the agency needs $539 million through January to help vulnerable families across Afghanistan.
Climate change is also hurting the population, especially those in rural areas.
Matiullah Khalis, head of the National Environmental Protection Agency, said last week that drought, water shortages, declining arable land, and flash floods were having a 'profound impact' on people's lives and the economy.
See Full Web Article
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Backs Off 'Hostile Takeover' of D.C. Police
WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 14: Members of the National Guard walk on the National Mall on August 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump announced plans to deploy federal officers and the National Guard to the District in order to place the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control and assist in crime prevention in the nation's capital. Credit - Anna Moneymaker—Getty Images The White House has backed off plans for a full takeover of the D.C. police force and will allow for the city's police chief to remain in charge after a judge indicated they would block the move. President Donald Trump this week invoked emergency powers to take control of the D.C. police department and call in the National Guard to a city that he claimed is overrun by "bloodshed, bedlam and squalor"—a claim that is disputed by experts. Read More: Trump Paints a Picture of D.C. as a Crime-Ridden Hell-Hole. Here Are the Facts As part of the federal takeover, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Drug and Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Terrance C. Cole as 'Emergency Police Commissioner,' a move that would have given the White House extraordinary powers over policing. The city's Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit calling for an emergency restraining order to block the move, accusing the Trump Administration of implementing a 'hostile takeover' of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) that would lead to 'imminent, irreparable harm'. 'In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive,' Smith wrote in the lawsuit Judge Ana Reyes said in a Friday hearing that, according to the Home Rule Act, the Department of Justice needed to rewrite the section of the executive order that placed Cole in charge, and that he needed to go through the city's mayor. Reyes stopped short of issuing a restraining order, but indicated that if the DOJ did not rewrite the section, she would. Read More: Trump Took Over the D.C. Police. He Can't Do It In Other Cities, Legal Experts Say 'The statute [The Home Rule Act] would have no meaning at all if the president could just say 'we're taking over your police department,'' Reyes said. In a press conference after the hearing, Schwalb touted the result as a 'very important win for Home Rule today.' A new directive by Bondi following the lawsuit allowed for Chief Pamela Smith to remain in charge of the force, though the city will still be under the Administration's control, and orders will be sent through the city's Mayor Muriel Bowser. The Trump Administration will still essentially have control over the city, but Smith will maintain control of the day-to-day operations of the MPD. In Bondi's new directive, though, she also required MPD to comply with the Trump Administration's aggressive immigration tactics, rescinding two police practices that limited MPD's immigration enforcement—also known as 'sanctuary policies.' D.C's At-Large Councilmember Christina Henderson reacted on X that, 'Respectfully, the Attorney General does not have the authority to revoke laws.' In the first week alone of the Trump Administration's federal takeover, nearly 200 arrests have been reported in the city, including many undocumented immigrants, which has alarmed civil rights groups. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer to speak with coalition of the willing ahead of Zelensky-Trump meeting
Sir Keir Starmer will speak to western allies on Sunday ahead of Volodymyr Zelensky's White House meeting with Donald Trump. The Prime Minister, France's Emmanuel Macron and Germany's Friedrich Merz will host the meeting of the coalition of the willing on Sunday afternoon. The coalition, made up of 30-plus nations, is prepared to deter Russian aggression by putting troops on the ground in Ukraine once the war is over. The meeting, which is expected to take place at approximately 2pm UK time, comes on the heels of US President Mr Trump's summit in Alaska with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Mr Trump hoped to secure a peace deal from the talks at a military base in Anchorage, but both he and Mr Putin walked away without agreement on how to end the war in Ukraine. The US leader, however, insisted 'some great progress' was made, with 'many points' agreed and 'very few' remaining. Several news outlets have cited sources which claimed that during the negotiations Mr Putin demanded full control of Donetsk and Luhansk – two occupied Ukrainian regions – as a condition for ending the war. In exchange he would give up other Ukrainian territories held by Russian troops. Other outlets reported that Mr Trump is inclined to support the plan, and will speak to Mr Zelensky about it on Monday when they meet in the Oval Office. After the Alaska summit, the US president told Fox News it was now up to Mr Zelensky to 'make a deal' to end the war. Sir Keir commended Mr Trump's 'pursuit of an end to the killing' following a phone call with the US president, Mr Zelensky and Nato allies on Saturday morning. But he insisted Ukraine's leader must not be excluded from future talks to broker a peace in Ukraine.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Putin Must Be Thrilled With the Result of the Alaska Summit
Russian President Putin speeches during their joint press conference with U.S. Persident Donald Trump after their meeing on war in Ukraine at U.S. Air Base In Alaska on August 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska, United States. Credit - Contributor—Getty Images Vladimir Putin wanted a lot of things from his visit to Alaska. A ceasefire in Ukraine was not one of them. Throughout the summer, his troops have been grinding out advances along the frontline, and they achieved a sudden breakthrough in the days before the Alaska summit. Putin's main objective was to buy time for his troops to continue those advances, all while avoiding the 'very severe consequences' that President Donald Trump promised to impose on the Russians if they refused to call a ceasefire. It appears Putin succeeded on both counts. In his public statements on Friday night, Trump made clear he no longer plans to impose any economic pain on Russia. 'Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that,' he told Fox News after the summit. 'I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now.' In Trump's understanding, two or three weeks is a malleable term, as the New York Times recently noted, 'not a measurement of time so much as a placeholder.' Read more: From the Sidelines, Ukraine Prepares to Watch as U.S., Russia Discuss Its Fate On the battlefield, however, it could mean the difference between holding off the Russians and allowing them to seize another region of Ukraine. The epicenter of the fighting in recent weeks has been the region of Donetsk, where Ukrainian troops were able to stop the latest Russian breakthrough. The latest maps of the fighting indicate that the Kremlin remains determined to seize that region. Another few weeks of Russian infantry assaults could achieve that goal, allowing Putin to negotiate with the U.S. and Ukraine from a position of greater advantage. 'Things at the front are going well for them,' a senior Ukrainian military officer tells TIME. 'Slow but steady.' These gains helped Putin negotiate in Alaska from a position of strength. Ahead of their talks, Trump indicated that he wants the warring sides to 'swap' territories, with Ukraine giving away its own land in exchange for areas Russia has occupied. 'They've occupied some very prime territory,' Trump said a few days before his summit with Putin. 'We're going to try and get some of that territory back for Ukraine.' Trump failed to achieve that in Alaska, and his chances of getting what he calls a 'fair deal' for Ukraine diminish as Russian forces continue to gain ground. For reasons that remain unclear, Trump said he believes that Putin wants to stop the fighting. 'I believe he wants to get it over,' Trump said. 'Now, I've said that a few times, and I've been disappointed.' Alaska marks the latest of these disappointments, but Trump has shown no inclination to change his strategy. He did not even secure some of the easier concessions from Putin that might have given the Americans something to show for the Alaskan spectacle. One of Russia's leading dissidents, Yulia Navalnaya, had urged Trump to secure the release of Russian political prisoners jailed for their opposition to the war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for his part, has urged the U.S. to demand the release of thousands of Ukrainian children that Russian forces have abducted from the war zone. Neither of these issues came up in the official statements in Alaska. Appearing side by side on Friday, Trump gave his guest the floor, allowing Putin to deliver another one of his rambling history lessons, a maneuver that has been likened to diplomatic 'filibustering.' When Trump's turn came to speak, he admitted that the talks had not resulted in a deal. The next step toward peace, he suggested, would be to arrange a meeting between Putin and Zelensky. But the Russian side has given no indication that it would be open to such an arrangement. Instead, at the end of their press conference in Alaska, Putin suggested in English that he and Trump would meet 'next time in Moscow,' an idea that seemed to catch Trump off guard. 'Oh, that's an interesting one,' he replied. 'I'll get a little heat on that one.' This final exchange pointed again to the paltry outcomes of the summit. The two sides had not even agreed on a location or a format for the next stage of the peace process, while Putin came away confident enough to suggest that his capital would be a fitting venue. It was hard to blame him. Given the red-carpet treatment he received in Alaska, Putin had every reason to feel like a winner coming out of those talks. He had, after all, achieved his main objective, and given nothing away. Contact us at letters@
