More than 122-million displaced by wars as aid funding falls: UN
The number of people displaced by war and persecution around the world climbed above 122-million this year due to failures to resolve multiyear conflicts such as those in Sudan and Ukraine, the UN refugee agency said on Thursday.
However, it said funding to help refugees has fallen to 2015 levels. There were more than 2-million more people displaced globally by the end of April than there were the year before despite the return of nearly the same number of Syrians after the collapse of Bashar al-Assad's rule, according to the report by UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Filippo Grandi.
It attributed the rise to conflicts in Sudan, Myanmar and Ukraine, and a continued failure to stop the fighting.
'We are living in a time of intense volatility in international relations, with modern warfare creating a fragile, harrowing landscape marked by acute human suffering,' Grandi said in a statement alongside the report.
Humanitarians said a lack of political leadership in brokering peace deals is prolonging conflicts and stretching aid groups seeking to lessen their impact.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Trump's white South African resettlement plan and the global colour line
The narrative that white South Africans are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. Image: File/X THE arrival of over 3 000 white South Africans in the United States under President Donald Trump's fast-tracked refugee resettlement programme is a racial spectacle of historic proportions. Framed by Trump as a rescue mission from 'racial discrimination' and even 'genocide' in post-apartheid South Africa, the scheme repackages whiteness as victimhood while reasserting racial hierarchies through the veneer of humanitarian concern. Cheryl Harris's seminal concept of 'whiteness as property' is especially instructive here. This programme protects not the displaced, but the entitlements embedded in whiteness — land, social status, and the right to global mobility. These arrivals, facilitated under a controversial executive order, mark the first time in US history that white South Africans have been accepted en masse as refugees. The move has drawn intense scrutiny, with South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola dismissing the claims as 'unfounded and inflammatory'. He clarified that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had no involvement and had consistently found no basis for refugee status for white South Africans. 'The resettlement of South Africans under the guise of being 'refugees' is a political project to delegitimise our democracy,' Lamola asserted. The narrative that white South Africans — particularly Afrikaner farmers — are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. In February 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14152: Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa, suspending non-essential aid. He cited South Africa's land reform policies and its support for Palestine at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as evidence of 'anti-white discrimination'. His language echoed apartheid-era rhetoric, framing land expropriation without compensation — a constitutional measure designed to redress historical injustice — as proof of racial targeting. This is not a story about humanitarian rescue. It is about the repackaging of privilege as persecution. Trump's administration, by reclassifying specific 'South African communities' for humanitarian parole, has revived the settler-native divide. As Mahmood Mamdani has noted, this manoeuvre casts descendants of apartheid's beneficiaries as 'refugees' and South Africa itself as the oppressor. Achille Mbembe's critique of global humanism is relevant here: the programme renders Black suffering invisible while privileging whiteness as a passport to refuge and legitimacy. Consequently, while Black refugees languish in camps, whiteness is deemed inherently worthy of protection, effectively enacting a form of apartheid within the asylum system itself. The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as someone fleeing a 'well-founded fear of persecution.' Neither the Convention nor US law has ever interpreted this to include the loss of economic dominance or historical privilege. Fleeing land redistribution or reduced social status does not amount to persecution, especially when these changes are legally enacted by a democratic society seeking to correct historical wrongs. The parallels to earlier racial engineering are striking. In 1932, the US-sponsored *Carnegie Poor White Study* analysed the 'problem' of poor whites in South Africa. The initiative was not rooted in concern for poverty but in preserving white supremacy. The report warned that poor whites threatened the racial order and recommended state interventions to uplift them, while black South Africans were systematically excluded from similar support. This laid the foundation for apartheid's white welfare state and established a pattern of American intervention when white South Africans faced hardship, real or perceived. Trump's resettlement scheme is the 21st-century iteration of this pattern. White South Africans are framed not as beneficiaries of a violent racial order, but as victims of transformation, worthy of rescue. South Africa's Constitutional Court recently affirmed that acquiring foreign nationality — whether through refugee resettlement or otherwise — does not automatically strip someone of South African citizenship. In a landmark ruling, the Court struck down a section of the Citizenship Act that had quietly revoked citizenship without due process, calling the move irrational and unconstitutional. However, the case of these white South Africans is unique. Their refugee claims are based on false premises and a political agenda. South Africa may therefore have grounds to argue that accepting the US offer constitutes a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. The Constitutional Court's ruling on dual citizenship might not protect them in this politically charged context. Nowhere is the hypocrisy more glaring than in the American South. In the Mississippi Delta, six Black farmworkers filed a federal lawsuit in 2021 after being replaced by white South Africans brought in under the H-2A visa programme. The plaintiffs, many descended from enslaved people who built Southern agriculture, earned just $7.25 per hour — the federal minimum wage — while their white South African replacements were paid over $11. The lawsuit alleges that these Black workers were forced to train their replacements, who were then housed in better accommodations and elevated in status simply because they were white. Between 2011 and 2020, the number of South Africans on H-2A visas increased by 441%, making them the second-largest national group in the programme. The majority are white. The message is clear: in the racial calculus of US capitalism, white foreign labour is worth more than black American lives. Mexican seasonal workers, once the backbone of US agriculture, are also increasingly excluded — both by border walls and by labour policies that privilege whiteness over need. The result is a reshuffling of the global racial order, disguised as economic necessity. Trump's South African refugee programme is less about humanitarian concern and more about reaffirming a hierarchy of global suffering, where privilege continues to mask itself as victimhood. What we are witnessing is the reinforcement of a global colour line — one where whiteness retains its claim to mobility, safety, and opportunity, while blackness and brownness are rendered threats to be contained. The implications are profound: Refugee systems that prioritise whiteness over need. Economic visas favour white foreign farmers over Black citizens. Historical privilege is purposely mistaken for victimhood. This is not humanitarianism. It is neo-colonialism in motion. As the world watches Trump engineer the next stage of global apartheid, we must ask: What kind of refugee is it when only the privileged are welcome? When does skin colour ration citizenship, safety, and opportunity? If the notion of 'refuge' is to mean anything, it must centre justice, not historical comfort. Siyayibanga le economy! * Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.
eNCA
5 hours ago
- eNCA
Macron urges renewed nuclear dialogue after Israel's Iran strikes
France's President Emmanuel Macron on Friday urged the US and Iran to resume nuclear talks following a wave of Israeli strikes against Iran. "Iran bears a heavy responsibility in the destabilisation of the whole region," he said after Western nations in recent days accused Tehran of deliberately escalating its nuclear programme, despite several rounds of US-Iran talks. "We call for the resumption of dialogue and the reaching of a deal." US President Donald Trump's Middle East pointman Steve Witkoff had been set to hold a sixth round of talks with Iran on Sunday in Oman. After Israel's deadly strikes early on Friday, Trump afterwards urged Iran to "make a deal, before there is nothing left", warning of "even more brutal" attacks to come. Macron, who earlier on Friday defended Israel's right to protect itself, said France could help in the case of an Iranian retaliation against Israel. "If Israel were to be attacked in retaliation by Iran, France, if in a position to do so, would take part in protection and defence operations," he said. Macron earlier in the day spoke by phone to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Elysee said, following a spike in diplomatic tensions. The French presidency said the phone conversation took place but did not provide details. Relations between Macron and Netanyahu have been strained in recent months over Israel's blockade of Gaza and France's plans to recognise a Palestinian state. - UN meeting postponed - France and Saudi Arabia have been planning to co-chair a UN conference on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians next week in New York. But Macron said on Friday evening that meeting had been postponed. "While we have to postpone this conference for logistical and security reasons, it will take place as soon as possible," Macron said at a press conference. Israel pounded Iran in a series of air raids, striking 100 targets including nuclear and military sites, as well as killing the armed forces' chief of staff. In the aftermath of the strikes, Macron also spoke with leaders including Trump and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Earlier Friday, Macron said Israel had the right to defend itself and ensure its security but also called for de-escalation. "To avoid jeopardising the stability of the entire region, I call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to de-escalate," he said on X. Macron spoke after convening a meeting of the National Defence and Security Council. "All necessary steps will be taken to protect our nationals and our diplomatic and military missions in the region," Macron said. Iran has gradually broken away from its commitments under the nuclear deal it struck with world powers including the United States and France in 2015. The landmark deal provided Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its atomic programme, but it fell apart after the unilateral withdrawal of the United States during Trump's first term in 2018.
IOL News
13 hours ago
- IOL News
Iran blames the US for Israeli airstrikes amid escalating tensions
Iran facing Israeli airstrike over the allegation of developing nuclear weapons. Image: Independent Media Archives The Iranian government has blamed the United States of America for the Israeli airstrike on its country this week. In a statement released on Friday through its embassy in Pretoria, Iran's Foreign Affairs Ministry said the Zionist regime's aggressive actions against Iran could not have happened without US coordination and approval. 'Consequently, the US government, as the primary patron of this regime, will also bear responsibility for the dangerous repercussions of the Zionist regime's reckless actions,' read the statement. In February, US President Donald Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM), calling on Iran to be stopped from engaging in any nuclear programmes. He said Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and that its terrorist network should be neutralised and its aggressive development of missiles, as well as other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, be countered. The memorandum read: 'In 2020, President Trump declared that as long as (he is) President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.' International media reported on Friday that the Israeli military attacked Iran's nuclear and military sites, killing senior military officials and nuclear scientists. According to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), among those who were killed in the early hours of Friday in Tehran, Iran's capital, was Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Major-General Hossein Salami. In another statement released on Thursday, the Iranian government said the country only has a 'peaceful nature of its nuclear programme'. It said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s Board of Governors had been misled by France, the UK, Germany, and the US to cast doubt about the nature of its nuclear programme. The Ministry stated that Israeli attacks on Iran constitute a violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter. 'In accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran reserves the legitimate and legal right to respond to this aggression. The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will not hesitate to defend Iran's sovereignty with full strength and in the manner they deem appropriate,' read Friday's statement. The Ministry also called on the UN to carry out its mandate of preventing aggression, breach of peace, and threats to peace. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran underscores the Security Council's obligation to take immediate action against this violation of international peace and security, stemming from the Zionist regime's blatant aggression. 'We call upon the President and members of the Council to act without delay in this regard,' the Ministry said. FDD said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the airstrike on Iran through the operation 'Rising Lion' as aimed at rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel's survival. FDD said Netanyahu said the strikes will 'continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat'. It said Netanyahu stressed his gratitude to Trump 'for his steadfast stance', against Iran's nuclear weapons. In defence of Israeli action, FDD Chief Executive Officer Mark Dubowitz said the Israeli inaction would have had a far greater cost. 'Israel did what had to be done: defend itself, the West, and ultimately the Iranian people from the genocidal ambitions of the mullahs. 'Nuclear talks were heading to collapse under Tehran's defiance, and sanctions alone couldn't stop Iran's race toward multiple nuclear weapons,' said Dubowitz. However, South Africa's former member of the IAEA Board of Directors, Dr Abdul Samad Minty, told the International Union of Scientists publication early this year that the IAEA had previously found no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. 'When I was on the board of the IAEA, I was able to expose in many cases that Iran was complying with the peaceful requirements of the IAEA, but the Western countries continued to support Israel's case that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. 'There was no evidence at that time that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, but they thought that all nuclear cooperation with Iran should be stopped, because it had the potential in the end to develop nuclear weapons,' the publication quoted Minty.
