One in five Afghans at risk from landmines
After 40 years of conflict, Afghanistan is second only to Ukraine in terms of its contamination with unexploded ordnance but risks becoming 'a forgotten humanitarian problem'.
Some 6.4 million people – around a fifth of the country's total population – live in areas littered with landmines and unexploded ordnance, The Halo Trust has said in a new analysis of the threat facing Afghans.
As a result, roughly 50 Afghans are being killed or severely wounded in explosive accidents every month.
More than 80 per cent of victims are children, often sent to collect scrap metal that is subsequently sold-on in order for their families to make a living.
The problem has been exacerbated recently by the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees from neighbouring Pakistan and Iran.
Many of those arriving back in the country fled following the Taliban takeover in 2021, and often have few means to support themselves.
The Halo Trust has cleared over 800,000 landmines and 11 million pieces of unexploded ordnance from Afghanistan since it began working in the country in 1998.
But recent cuts to foreign aid spending – particularly USAID, the US's foreign aid agency which was a major funder of international demining programmes – has forced the organisation to cut its mine-clearing staff in Afghanistan by almost half, from 2,200 to 1,000 people.
'Afghanistan is now a forgotten humanitarian problem. The Afghan people have struggled for over four decades of conflict, displacement, poverty, and we need the international community to continue to support people to the end of this journey and not leave them stranded halfway through,' said Dr Farid Homayoun, the Halo Trust's Afghanistan Programme Manager.
Earlier this year, the Halo Trust sounded the alarm after several European countries announced plans to leave the Ottawa Treaty, a landmark agreement introduced in 1997 that bans the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines.
Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland announced their intentions to withdraw in April, citing the threat of a Russian attack.
Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EU's Von der Leyen to Meet Trump in Bid to Clinch Trade Deal
(Bloomberg) -- European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she will travel to Scotland this weekend to meet with US President Donald Trump, as the two sides aim to conclude a trade deal ahead of an Aug. 1 deadline when 30% tariffs on the bloc's exports are otherwise due to kick in. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Trump Administration Sues NYC Over Sanctuary City Policy After months of talks and shuttle diplomacy between Brussels and Washington DC, the two sides have been zeroing in on an agreement this past week that would see the EU face 15% tariffs on most of its trade. Limited exemptions are expected for aviation, some medical devices and generic medicines, several spirits, and a specific set of manufacturing equipment that the US needs, Bloomberg previously reported. Steel and aluminum imports would likely benefit from a quota under the arrangements under discussion but above that threshold they would face a higher tariff of 50%. 'We'll see if we make a deal,' Trump said as he arrived in Scotland on Friday. 'Ursula will be here, highly respected woman. So we look forward to that.' Trump reiterated that he believed there was 'a 50-50 chance' of a deal with the EU, saying there were sticking points on 'maybe 20 different things' that he did not want to detail publicly. Trump gave similar odds in Washington before leaving, but also said the EU had a 'pretty good chance' of reaching an agreement. Trump announced tariffs on almost all US trading partners in April, declaring his intent to bring back domestic manufacturing, to pay for a massive tax-cut extension and to stop the rest of the world from taking advantage of the US. He has also sought to remove what he describes as barriers for American companies to do business around the world. Alongside a universal levy, the US president has hit cars and auto parts with a 25% levy, and steel and aluminum with double that. He's also threatened to target pharmaceuticals and semiconductors with new duties as early as next month, and recently announced a 50% tariff on copper. The EU has been seeking quotas and a ceiling on future sectoral tariffs that the US has yet to implement but it's unclear if an initial agreement will shield the bloc from potential future levies at this stage. The agreement would also cover non-tariff barriers, cooperation on economic security matters and strategic purchases by the EU in sectors such as energy and artificial intelligence. The terms of any initial deal, which is expected to take the form of a short joint statement, would need to be approved by member states, according to people familiar with the matter. The statement is seen as a stepping stone toward more detailed negotiations. Because of the ongoing uncertainty, the EU has in parallel put together countermeasures in the event of a no-deal scenario, which would see it quickly hit American exports with up to 30% tariffs on some €100 billion ($117 billion) worth of goods — including Boeing Co. aircraft, US-made cars and bourbon whiskey — in the event of no-deal and if Trump carries through with his threat to impose that rate on most of the bloc's exports after Aug. 1 or in future. The package also includes some export restrictions on scrap metals. In a no-deal scenario, the bloc is also prepared to move forward with its anti-coercion instrument, a potent trade tool that would eventually allow it to also target other areas such as market access, services and restrictions on public contracts, provided that there is a majority of member states backing its use. (Updates with Trump remarks in paragraphs 4-6.) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Pod Save America' on Gabbard's Obama allegations: ‘Crock of s—‘
'Pod Save America' host Dan Pfeiffer railed against Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's accusations that the Obama administration led a 'treasonous coup' over the 2016 election. 'I don't think we should call this a scandal,' said Pfeiffer, a former adviser to President Obama, in a Friday episode of the podcast. 'Like I don't know what else to call it, a crock of s—' 'They can't even explain the allegation. It makes no sense,' he continued. 'This is the most easily debunked thing in the world.' Last week, Gabbard released a report claiming that the Obama administration manipulated intelligence to create a false narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Gabbard then doubled down on the accusation and unsealed a formerly-classified House Intelligence Committee report on Wednesday that cast doubts on the European country's interest in the 2016 election and his desire to aid President Trump. She called the Obama administration's reported actions 'the most egregious weaponization and politicization of intelligence in American history.' Several intelligence reviews have concluded that Russia sought to influence the contest and that President Vladimir Putin favored Trump in the election. Gabbard, at a White House press briefing on Wednesday, claimed that the evidence pointed to Obama as the main instigator of the efforts and said she was looking into possible criminal implications. President Trump backed Gabbard, calling the intelligence assessment 'irrefutable proof that Obama was seditious.' 'I guess the crime is the creating a false narrative,' co-host Jon Favreau, former Obama speechwriter, said on the Friday episode. 'I didn't think a false narrative could be a coup.' The podcast hosts join fellow Democrats in criticizing Gabbard, particularly as fervor grows surrounding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, which Democrats — and even some Republicans — have called to be released. 'It seems as though the Trump administration is willing to declassify anything and everything except the Epstein files,' said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a statement. Favreau, on Friday's episode, pondered whether the the administration can 'will this scandal in to existence by repeating 'treasonous coup' over and over again.' .
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's End Game With The Wall Street Journal Defamation Lawsuit
At the top of a long list of questions surrounding President Trump's defamation lawsuit against the publisher of The Wall Street Journal: Does he expect to win the legal battle, or did he initiate it solely as a political stunt? And what does winning exactly mean to him? The circumstances around the filing of the lawsuit, which alleges that Trump was defamed in a report detailing a 2003 birthday letter from him to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, provide some clues. To start, it was brought in federal court in Florida rather than New York, where News Corp. is based, or Washington, D.C., where Trump resides. More from The Hollywood Reporter Trump's Side Deal With "New Owners" of Paramount May Hint at FCC Concessions Critic's Notebook: Ozzy Osbourne Created the Template for Reality TV Celebrity Reinvention, From Flavor Flav to Donald Trump House Republicans Vote to Rename Kennedy Center Opera House After Melania Trump If he does intend to take the case to a jury and is allowed to proceed in the Southern District of Florida because the Journal is distributed in the state, it's a smart play. Alejandro Brito, Trump's lawyer who also handled his defamation battle against ABC News, filed the lawsuit in the Miami division of the district, where jurors may be more likely to side-eye reporting from the Journal than those in liberal enclaves like Manhattan or D.C. For the enterprising defamation plaintiff, it pays to be in certain states with deep red outposts. Consider a Bay County, Florida, jury this year awarding a U.S. Navy veteran $5 million over a 2021 CNN report portraying him as illegally exploiting Afghans by charging exorbitant fees to be evacuated in the aftermath of the U.S. military withdrawal from the country. He later brought defamation lawsuits against the Associated Press and Puck News in the same state court. But there's another explanation for the more conspiratorial thinker: maybe Trump wants the lawsuit to get dismissed, or at least doesn't plan to take it all the way to the finish line before a jury. The Journal article was published July 17. Trump sued a day later, but a Florida statute requires at least five days written notice to a publication accused of defamation. The purpose of the provision is to provide newspapers every opportunity to make a full and fair retraction. The court could grant early dismissal of the lawsuit, if News Corp. moves to do so, under this law, which also provides for payment of legal fees. In a defamation case against The Daily Beast brought by right-wing commentator Dan Bongino over reporting about the end of his NRA TV show, the court noted that insufficient notice could necessitate dismissal 'with prejudice,' meaning it can't be refiled. Also at play: the lawsuit doesn't present an especially strong case that Trump was defamed by the Journal's reporting. 'The president's suit attempts to extrapolate from the carefully written story published by the WSJ, which never asserted that Trump had written or drawn or signed the content, but rather that the card in the birthday wishes book bears what appears to be a signature of his and what is a sketch of a naked woman's body,' says Christopher Beall, a First Amendment lawyer at Recht Kornfeld LLP and former Colorado Deputy Secretary of State. 'This is a classic plaintiff's maneuver of trying to assert that the defendant said something that they did not.' Assuming Brito, Trump's lawyer, was under orders to immediately sue, that would lend credibility to the belief that the lawsuit's actual goal is political or in the realm of public relations. By Trump's thinking, does it matter if he loses the case as long as he makes a fuss that the Journal's reporting was false? In this case, the last thing Trump wants is to drag out discovery, which would mean his name continuing to be splashed across headlines alongside Epstein's. Questioning under oath likely isn't in the cards. Six months after suing his former fixer Michael Cohen, Trump dropped the 2023 lawsuit, which was overseen by the same judge appointed to his case against the Journal, ahead of a key deposition. Another not mutually exclusive explanation lies in the possibility of Trump planning to extract concessions from News Corp. and the Journal by way of a settlement, regardless of the merits of the case. There's a well-worn road map. ABC News settled a lawsuit from Trump over its reporting for $15 million, as did CBS for $16 million despite the widespread belief that the case was frivolous. The inconvenient truth: Trump has various paths to a victory outside of a jury trial ending with a verdict that he was defamed. The X-factor in the legal showdown between Trump and the Journal will be Rupert Murdoch. The media scion has ambitions beyond News Corp. Making an adversary out of Trump could complicate his plans to bequeath his empire to his favored son, Lachlan Murdoch, who's more on the same page as him as far as keeping Fox a conservative media juggernaut than his other children. There's also speculation about what would happen with a Fox sale, which could be thwarted by various regulatory agencies taking orders from Trump as seen in the FCC asserting authority over Paramount's proposed merger with Skydance. Everyone will talk about the uphill battle that Trump faces proving 'actual malice,' requiring proof that the publication knew the article was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. But the reality is that Trump likely doesn't think the lawsuit will get to that stage of litigation. Best of The Hollywood Reporter How the Warner Brothers Got Their Film Business Started Meet the World Builders: Hollywood's Top Physical Production Executives of 2023 Men in Blazers, Hollywood's Favorite Soccer Podcast, Aims for a Global Empire Solve the daily Crossword
