logo
Nearly Two Centuries On, Quiet Settles On Afghanistan's British Cemetery

Nearly Two Centuries On, Quiet Settles On Afghanistan's British Cemetery

Aynullah Rahimi's family has for decades tended the old cemetery in Kabul reserved for non-Afghans, but since the country's latest war ended and foreigners left in droves, he says few now enter the oasis of quiet in the capital.
Dating back to the Anglo-Afghan wars of the 19th century, the small plot of land in the city centre has interred and memorialised foreign fighters, explorers and devotees of Afghanistan who have died in the country over some 180 years.
In the two decades of war between Western forces and the Taliban that ended in 2021 with the latter's victory, there were a handful of burials and memorials attended by ambassadors and dignitaries at the British Cemetery.
But these days, Rahimi quietly tends to the garden of roses and apricot trees, the calls of caged partridges louder than the rumbling traffic beyond the high stone wall that secludes the cemetery.
"Before the Taliban came to power, many foreigners used to come here to visit every week," he told AFP.
"No one visits here much now, only sometimes a few tourists," he said.
The paint on the walls -- hung with commemorative plaques for the dead of NATO countries who fought the Taliban, as well as journalists who covered the conflict -- has chipped and weathered since the Taliban takeover in 2021, when Western embassies emptied.
Where Kabul was once teeming with Western soldiers, diplomats, journalists and humanitarians, their presence has thinned dramatically.
Adventurers from around the world are increasingly travelling to the country, despite lingering security risks and Taliban-imposed restrictions primarily targeting Afghan women -- including a general ban on women entering Kabul's parks.
For those who know what's behind the wall marked only by a small sign reading "British Cemetery", they can pause in the shade in one of the few green spaces in the city fully open to foreign women.
"This is a historical place," Rahimi said, noting he hasn't had interference by the Taliban authorities.
Those whose countrymen are memorialised there are welcome, he added -- "it's their graveyard".
The last time the cemetery was full of the living, Rahimi said, was the burial of the latest person to be interred there -- Winifred Zoe Ritchie, who died in 2019 at the age of 99.
Ritchie's family brought her body from the United States to Afghanistan to be laid to rest next to her husband, Dwight, who was killed in a car crash in southern Afghanistan 40 years earlier.
The Ritchies had worked and lived in Afghanistan, one of their sons later following in their footsteps -- cementing the family's ties to a country far from their homeland.
The couple's daughter, Joanna Ginter, has memories of her family wandering through markets, flying kites and raising pigeons in Kabul years before the city was engulfed by the first of many conflicts that wracked the country for 40 years.
Their mother's burial "was the first time (we visited) since we were there for my dad's funeral", Ginter told AFP, having travelled back to Kabul with relatives.
"I was very happy to get to go there, even though it was for a funeral."
Her mother's grave marker stands out in light marble among the headstones, wobbly letters next to a long cross -- a rare sight in Afghanistan.
Older gravestones of some of the more than 150 people buried there bear the scars of conflict, names pockmarked into near unrecognisability by weapon fire that breached the wall.
Other than thieves who broke through a fence where the cemetery backs onto a hill dotted with Muslim graves -- "our graveyard", Rahimi calls it -- the caretaker says he is left mostly alone to his watch.
The 56-year-old grew up helping his uncle who raised him tend to the cemetery, taking over its care from his cousin who fled to Britain during the chaotic withdrawal of foreign forces as the Taliban marched into Kabul.
He had in turn taken up the post from his father, who guarded the cemetery and dug some of its graves for around 30 years.
"They also told me to go to England with them, but I refused and said I would stay here, and I have been here ever since," Rahimi said, certain one of his sons would follow in his footsteps. The grave of Winifred Zoe Ritchie (L) lies next to that of her husband Dwight, who died in a car crash in Afghanistan some 40 years earlier AFP Aynullah Rahimi's family has tended to the graves of foreigners in Kabul for decades AFP Plagues bearing names of soldiers who died during the Afghan War are displayed on a memorial wall at the British Cemetery in Kabul AFP

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Debate rages over legality of Israel's attack on Iran – DW – 06/18/2025
Debate rages over legality of Israel's attack on Iran – DW – 06/18/2025

DW

time34 minutes ago

  • DW

Debate rages over legality of Israel's attack on Iran – DW – 06/18/2025

Israel says it struck Iran in self-defense, fearing a nuclear threat. But international law covering self-defense by states is very strict — fueling heated debate about the legality of Israel's initial attack. When it comes to discussing whether Israel's initial attack on Iran was justified or not, the arguments on both sides are strident and emotional. Israel broke international law by attacking another country, one side says. It's a rogue state, bombing across borders with impunity, they claim. But Israel has been threatened by Iran for years and Iran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb, the other side argues. That poses an existential threat, they insist. But which side does international law — unswayed by emotion — come down on? Iranian leaders have been threatening Israel for years but in legal terms, the question must be whether they were making a nuclear bomb they would fire at Tel Aviv, experts say Image: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP via Getty Images How do analysts view legality of Israeli strikes? Senior Israeli politicians described their country's attack on Iran on June 13 as a "preemptive, precise" attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, arguing it was self-defense because they feared a future nuclear attack by Iran. Under international law, there are very specific rules about self-defense, for example Articles 2 and 51 of the United Nations Charter, and it's more likely this was what's known as a "preventive" attack. "My impression is that the majority of legal analysts see [Israel's attack] as a case of 'prohibited self-defense'," Matthias Goldmann, a law professor and international law expert at EBS University Wiesbaden, told DW. "Because the requirements for self-defense are rather strict. They require an imminent attack that cannot be fended off in any other way. If you apply that requirement, you come to the conclusion that there was no attack imminent from Iran." The timing alone makes that clear, Goldmann and others argue. On June 12, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, issued a statement saying that Iran was not fully cooperating with it. But Israel has not presented any evidence as to why they believed a nuclear threat from Iran was so close and US intelligence suggests Iran was possibly three years away from a bomb. There have been years of threatening rhetoric between Iran and Israel but it's deemed highly unlikely that Iran would fire a nuclear weapon at Israel later this month. "Look back at the Cold War," Goldmann suggested. "Both sides had nuclear weapons and relied on the principle of mutually assured destruction — where you don't use your nuclear weapon because you know the counterstrike would be fatal. That's why the mere fact of possessing nuclear weapons in itself cannot be considered an imminent attack." Israel itself already has an unspecified number of nuclear weapons but never signed the UN's Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and does not allow international inspections. In defense of Israel In a text for the website Just Security, Israeli law professors Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany agree an attack in self-defense would have been illegal. But, they say, the attack on Iran should actually be seen as part of the larger conflict. "That changes the legal arguments because the attack would have happened in a differently defined context," they say. In another opinion published this week on the US military academy West Point's website, Articles of War , Michael Schmitt, an American professor of public law, argues that the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat means the concept of self-defense could be interpreted more liberally. But Schmitt admits this is a "tough case" because there were still other options than force. Another of the preconditions to attacking in self-defense is that a country must have exhausted all other options — and Schmitt notes nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran were ongoing at the time of the attack. There's another reason why most legal experts believe Israel's attack was illegal, says Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at the UK's University of Reading. Ultimately the law on this is built to be restrictive, he says. "It's about minimizing the need to resort to force. It's not about creating loopholes that any state that likes to bomb others can exploit," he told DW. Laws of combat "All is not fair in war, once the fighting starts," says Tom Dannenbaum, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Boston's Tufts University. "There is a carefully calibrated legal framework which applies equally to both sides." Parties cannot target civilians or civilian objects, Dannenbaum told DW. "Objects only become military objectives when, by their nature, purpose, location, or use, they make an effective contribution to military action." The Israeli Ministry of Defense and the headquarters of the Israeli Defense forces is in central Tel Aviv and surrounding civilian buildings were damaged in recent Iranian attacks Image: Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images For example, this relates to Israeli targeting of Iranian nuclear scientists in their homes: Many lawyers explained that simply working on a weapons program doesn't make you a combatant. Meanwhile, Iran's bombing has also killed civilians in Tel Aviv. "Even when targeting military objectives, parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm," Dannenbaum explains, "and must not attack if expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage." It's hard to say if cases like this will ever be argued in court though. Goldmann, Dannenbaum and Milanovic say there's potential for related cases to eventually be heard at the International Court of Justice or perhaps at the European Court of Human Rights. The International Court of Justice was established after World War II to regulate disputes between states Image: LEX VAN LIESHOUT/ANP/AFP via Getty Images "But most of these types of issues on use of force don't end up in court," Milanovic said. "They get resolved in other ways. They're too political, or too large." Usually international diplomacy ends up resolving the issue, he noted. Degrading international law For many legal experts, one of the most worrying aspects is what appears to be implicit state support for Israel's most-likely-illegal definition of self-defense. For example, while not referring specifically to the June 13 attack on Iran, statements by Germany's government have all contained some form of the phrase, "Israel has the right to defend itself." "Of course, Israel does have a right to defend itself — but that right is limited by international law," Milanovic argues. The rules on self-defense are strict for a reason, he and Goldmann explain. If you start expanding their definition — for instance, saying you have the right to attack another state because they attacked you several years ago, or might attack you a few years from now — the rules are eroded, along with the whole system of international law. Germany's Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Germany doesn't have all the facts so can't say with any certainty whether the Israeli attack was legal or not Image: Hannes P Albert/dpa/picture alliance In the past, the international community has spoken out, for example, amid the controversy surrounding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on claims that it possessed "weapons of mass destruction," Goldmann noted. "The legal argument Russia made [for invading Ukraine] is also actually very similar to this Israeli argument," Milanovic pointed out. "If you read [Vladimir] Putin's speech on the eve of the 2022 invasion, it basically said that at some point in the future Ukraine and NATO are going to attack us and that's why we're doing this. But that's really not about self-defense," he concludes. "That's about, say, you don't like somebody, you think they're a threat and therefore you think you have the right to go to war with them. Which is simply not what international law says." Edited by: Jess Smee

Fear deepens in Tehran as Israel targets Iran's capital – DW – 06/17/2025
Fear deepens in Tehran as Israel targets Iran's capital – DW – 06/17/2025

DW

timean hour ago

  • DW

Fear deepens in Tehran as Israel targets Iran's capital – DW – 06/17/2025

Residents of Tehran are in a constant state of alert as increased attacks on Iran's oil and gas sector could push the country's struggling economy into crisis. Once bustling shopping streets in Tehran are now mostly deserted as residents flee Israeli attacks on the city. In the few supermarkets that are open, locals stock up on food. Workers have seen customers leave stores in tears following massive explosions outside. A resident says evacuation orders make her fear that staying in the city is just too dangerous. Israel's attacks have mostly focused on military facilities and key industrial sites around Tehran, plus nuclear facilities and a refinery in the South Pars gas field. The attacks on Iran's vital oil and gas sector could push the country's economy, already struggling under Western sanctions and rising inflation, into crisis. This video summary was created by AI from the original DW script. It was edited by a journalist before publication.

Spain Pushes Back Against Mooted 5% NATO Spending Goal
Spain Pushes Back Against Mooted 5% NATO Spending Goal

Int'l Business Times

time2 hours ago

  • Int'l Business Times

Spain Pushes Back Against Mooted 5% NATO Spending Goal

Spain is resisting US President Donald Trump's demands to hike defence spending to five percent of national output, potentially threatening NATO unity at a crucial alliance summit this month. The European country ended 2024 as the NATO member that dedicated the smallest proportion of its annual economic output to defence, falling short of the two percent target set in 2014. Faced with Trump's threats to withdraw US security guarantees from member states perceived as not pulling their weight, Spain has announced fresh spending to hit the two percent mark this year. But Madrid is baulking at suggestions the target should rise to five percent as an aggressive Russia, whose invasion of Ukraine has stretched into a fourth year, menaces Europe. With Germany and Poland already backing the new benchmark, Spain could find itself isolated among its allies at the June 24-25 NATO summit in The Hague. "Many countries want five (percent), we respect that... but Spain will fulfil those objectives set for us," Defence Minister Margarita Robles said on the sidelines of a meeting of NATO counterparts in Brussels this month. "What is really important is that Spain will meet the capacities and objectives" assigned by NATO and "we cannot set ourselves a percentage", she said. For Felix Arteaga, a defence specialist at Madrid's Elcano Royal Institute, "internal political reasons" are determining the stance of the minority left-wing coalition government. Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez faces a balancing act of aligning with NATO allies and cajoling his far-left junior coalition partner Sumar, which is hostile to increasing military spending. He has not submitted to parliament the plans for new defence spending of more than 10 billion euros, sparking criticism from his parliamentary allies whose support is crucial for the government's viability. The fragile coalition has wobbled in the past week after a corruption scandal implicating one of Sanchez's inner circle sparked a crisis within his Socialist party. In Spain, "high political fragmentation makes it difficult to reach deals similar to those of other countries" such as Germany, said Santiago Calvo, an economics professor at the Universidad de las Hesperides. Calvo also pointed to "delicate" public finances, with Spain's debt one of the highest in the European Union at 103.5 percent of gross domestic product. That figure has nonetheless receded in recent years, and continued strong economic performance should give the government "margin" to spend more, said Arteaga, who instead identified "cultural" hindrances. The Iberian Peninsula's greater distance from Russia than eastern European countries like Poland "reduces concern and urgency... we do not feel threatened, we do not want to enter armed conflicts", Arteaga said. "The government must explain to Spanish citizens the need to show solidarity" with countries in northern and eastern Europe, he said. Ambiguity also surrounds the idea of investing five percent of GDP in defence. NATO chief Mark Rutte has mentioned 3.5 percent of military spending in the traditional definition of the term by 2032, with the remaining 1.5 percent going to security in a broader sense, including border protection and cybersecurity. At the NATO summit, "everything will come down to details" such as the flexibility of the definition of defence spending and the timeframe to achieve it, Arteaga predicted. Robles said "Spain will not veto anything" at the summit, calling her country "a constructive ally".

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store