U.N. criticises German plan to deport Afghans
Germany stopped deportations following the Taliban's return to power in 2021 but the rise of far-right and anti-immigrant politicians has seen the topic rise up the agenda.
Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said on Thursday he envisaged Germany "making agreements directly with Afghanistan to enable deportations".
But Ravina Shamdasani, spokeswoman for the United Nations' human rights office (OHCHR), told reporters in Geneva it was "not appropriate to return people to Afghanistan".
"We have been documenting continuing human rights violations in Afghanistan," she said, including denial of women's rights and executions.
Arafat Jamal of the UN's refugee agency (UNHCR) in Kabul said his organisation was seeking funding to protect 1.4 million Afghans who had returned since the start of the year -- most of them from Iran.
He said forcing Afghans to return risked causing further instability across the region and stressed that the UNHCR still has a "non-return advisory" in force for Afghanistan.
"In other words... the conditions on the ground are not yet ready for returns," he said.
"We urge countries not to forcibly return (people) to Afghanistan."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
US blames Hamas for attack that hurt two US aid workers in Gaza
The United States on Saturday blamed Hamas for an attack that injured two American aid workers from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation at a food distribution site in Gaza. The US- and Israeli-backed GHF said in a statement that the injured Americans were receiving medical treatment and were in a stable condition with non-life-threatening injuries. 'The attack – which preliminary information indicates was carried out by two assailants who threw two grenades at the Americans – occurred at the conclusion of an otherwise successful distribution in which thousands of Gazans safely received food,' the GHF said. US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce blamed 'Hamas terrorists' for the attack. 'This act of violence against the people actually bringing relief to Gazans lays bare the depravity of Hamas,' she said in a post on X. 'GHF has contributed over 62 MILLION MEALS – nothing will stop these courageous aid workers. We are praying for the rapid recovery of the injured Americans.' The Israeli military earlier accused what it called 'terrorist organisations' of sabotaging the distribution of aid in Gaza. GHF, which began distributing aid in Gaza in May, employs private US military contractors to provide security at their sites. Gaza has seen an escalation in violence as efforts continue to reach a ceasefire agreement. Hamas on Friday said it had responded positively to a US-brokered deal and was prepared to enter talks. US President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday. Gazan authorities reported at least 70 people have been killed in the territory by the Israeli military in the last 24 hours, including 23 near aid distribution sites. The ministry did not specify where or how exactly they had been killed. The Israeli military had no immediate comment on the reports. In a statement on Friday, the military said troops had killed 100 militants in Gaza in the past week, and that it had 'operational control' over 65% of Gaza after an offensive against Hamas fighters in the north. The Hamas-run interior ministry in Gaza on Thursday had warned residents of the coastal enclave not to assist the GHF, saying deadly incidents near its distribution sites endangered hungry Gazans. The GHF bypasses traditional aid channels, including the United Nations, which says the US-based organisation is neither impartial nor neutral. Since Israel lifted an 11-week aid blockade on Gaza on May 19, the UN says more than 400 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid handouts. A senior UN official said last week that the majority of people killed were trying to reach aid distribution sites of the GHF. The latest bloodshed in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict was triggered in October 2023, when Hamas attacked southern Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies. Gaza's health ministry says Israel's retaliatory military assault on the enclave has killed over 57,000 Palestinians. It has also caused a hunger crisis, internally displaced Gaza's entire population and prompted accusations of genocide and war crimes. Israel denies the accusations.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei reappears in public at mourning ceremony after staying off radar amid war with Israel
Iran's Supreme Leader, 86-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suddenly disappeared for nearly two weeks during recent fighting with Israel. According to reports, he hadn't been seen since June 11, just before Israel started bombing Iran on June 13. Khamenei finally stepped back into view on July 5 at a mourning ceremony in Tehran. Looking thin but calm, he sat quietly while crowds marked Ashura, a holy day for Muslims. His surprise return came as Iran faces huge challenges: Nuclear sites lie in ruins, with the U.S. saying Iran's atomic program is 'obliterated'. Iran has now stopped working with UN nuclear inspectors. More trouble brews inside Iran's government too. Powerful army groups are fighting for control once Khamenei dies, with some wanting less religious rule. While missiles hit Tehran and other cities, Khamenei vanished completely. State TV showed no videos of him, and officials gave confusing answers when asked where he was. One aide just told worried Iranians: 'We should all be praying'. Security experts believed Khamenei hid in a secret underground bunker to avoid assassination attempts by Israel, who had threatened to target him directly. During his disappearance, Khamenei sent only one message, a shaky video released after the ceasefire. He claimed Iran "won" against Israel and called U.S. attacks on nuclear sites 'unimportant'. But his words didn't match reality: Israel killed over 30 top Iranian commanders and scientists, while U.S. bombs wrecked key nuclear facilities.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
The nuclear policeman
On July 2, Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered his country to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog. He explained this decision as 'a natural response to the unjustified, unconstructive, and destructive conduct' of the IAEA's Director General Rafael Grossi. Tehran believes Mr. Grossi cleared the ground for Israel's unprovoked strikes on its nuclear facilities by preparing a 'misleading' report on Iran's compliance with non-proliferation obligations. On the basis of this report, the IAEA's Board of Governors on June 12, one day before Israel's attack, adopted a resolution stating that Iran had 'failed to cooperate fully' with the Agency and accused it of 'repeatedly failing to provide the Agency with technically credible explanations' to its various queries. Israel and the U.S. used this resolution to push forward the narrative that Iran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb and the only way to stop it was to destroy its nuclear installations through 'pre-emptive' military strikes. Subsequently, after Israel struck Iran's nuclear sites, Mr. Grossi made a clarification that seemed to walk back the impression created by the June 12 resolution. In an interview with CNN, he said, 'We did not have any proof of a systematic effort by Iran to make a nuclear weapon.' A spokesperson of Iran's Ministry of External Affairs shared the video clip of Mr. Grossi's interview on social media with the comment, 'This is too late, Mr. Grossi: you obscured this truth in your absolutely biased report…Do you know how many innocent Iranians have been killed/maimed as a result of this criminal war? You've made IAEA a partner to this unjust war of aggression.' It cannot be denied that Mr. Grossi and the IAEA have played a major role in shaping the discourse around Iran's nuclear programme. But is there merit in the Iranian claim that under Mr. Grossi, the IAEA has been acting in alignment with Western, and in particular, Israeli political interests? Mr. Grossi, 64, is a diplomat from the Argentine Foreign Service. In a career spanning 40 years, he carved a niche for himself in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, serving as president of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (2014-2016) before assuming office as Director General of the IAEA on December 3, 2019. He said in a 2020 interview, 'I feel like I prepared for this my whole life.' As the IAEA chief, Mr. Grossi made headlines in 2022 for his energetic efforts to secure Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which was caught in the cross-fire of the Ukraine-Russia war. An accidental strike on it could unleash a nuclear disaster that would impact much of Europe. Mr. Grossi, at some risk to his own life, personally visited the nuclear plant near the frontline even as shells rained down not far away. With the consent of the Ukrainian leadership, he shut down all but one reactor, and as an additional safety measure, left behind a team of UN inspectors — an arrangement that continues to this day. But his efforts did not stop there. A month later, he went to St. Petersburg and met Russian President Vladimir Putin. His mission: to extract an assurance that Russian forces would not target the Zaporizhzhia plant. Mr. Grossi's trip had the intended effect, with the Russians steering clear of attacking the facility. IAEA's mandate Mr. Grossi's actions were fully in keeping with the mandate of the IAEA, which is to promote and safeguard peaceful nuclear programmes all over the world. Today, however, the IAEA is known more as an agency tasked with verifying that nuclear materials meant for civilian use are not diverted for weaponisation. In fact, IAEA inspectors cannot, and are not mandated to, search for weapons. They merely monitor nuclear facilities to ensure that the signatory country is fulfilling its obligations under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA). Critically, IAEA inspections, by design, are incapable of generating verifiable evidence of the absence of a military nuclear programme. Nor can its reports — with their catalogue of 'failures' in compliance or cooperation — serve as a proxy for the existence of a weaponisation programme, in the absence of independent intel proving as much. Since IAEA inspections cannot possibly cover every square inch of a vast country, the problem of 'unknowns' at 'undeclared' locations are a given. While these might warrant further investigation, it is questionable whether they can be used to fuel speculation about a country's intentions at a time of escalating tensions. And yet, the ambiguous wording in the IAEA resolution and Mr. Grossi's public statements did precisely that, lending credence to the narrative of Iran building a nuclear bomb. Ironically, American intel leaked to the media, as well as a statement in March 2025 by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, confirmed that Iran was not building a bomb. Another major element of this narrative was that Iran had 400 kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is not needed for civilian use. Mr. Grossi dwelled on this aspect often in his public pronouncements. Yet, it is not illegal under the NPT for a signatory country to hold uranium enriched to 60%. For Iran, however, it was prohibited, but only under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 agreement which limited its enrichment rights to 3.67% and capped its stockpiling of enriched uranium at 300kg. But the JCPOA became defunct — at least from the Iranian perspective — the moment the U.S. withdrew from it in 2018 and the sanctions relief guaranteed under it for Iran failed to materialise. But Mr. Grossi went along with the position of holding Iran to a JCPOA the West had already scuttled, while disregarding the IAEA's own resolutions that prohibit military attacks on civilian nuclear installations. Attacks prohibited The IAEA's General Conference resolution (407) adopted in November 1983 states that 'all armed attacks against nuclear installations devoted to peaceful purposes should be explicitly prohibited'. A draft resolution of September 26, 1985, submitted jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden not only forbade Israel from targeting Iraq's civilian nuclear facilities, it further called 'upon Israel urgently to place all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards' – something difficult to envisage at a time when exemption for Israel from international law is getting increasingly normalised. Incidentally, both these resolutions were from a time when the IAEA was led by Mr. Grossi's illustrious predecessor, Hans Blix. Under the IAEA statutes and the UN charter, Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear programme. It is also entitled to protection of its nuclear installations from military attacks. And yet, Mr. Grossi never condemned the Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. On the contrary, his words and deeds amplified suspicions about Iran's intentions, which were used by Israel and the U.S. to justify their attack. Today, in the aftermath of a fragile and difficult ceasefire, Mr. Grossi is back to stoking fears about Iran's nuclear programme by claiming it could start enriching uranium again in a matter of months. Not surprisingly, Iran has refused to allow IAEA inspection of its bombed-out nuclear facilities, with the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, stating, 'Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent.' Had Mr. Grossi displayed a little of the same urgency for protecting Iran's civilian nuclear facilities that he did for Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, it may have gone some way toward protecting the IAEA's credibility among nuclear threshold states.
