&w=3840&q=100)
At least 1.2 mn Afghans forced to return from Iran, Pakistan this year: UN
At least 1.2 million Afghans have been forced to return from Iran and Pakistan this year, the UN refugee agency said Saturday, warning that repatriations on a massive scale have the potential to destabilise the fragile situation in Afghanistan.
Iran and Pakistan in 2023 launched separate campaigns to expel foreigners they said were living in the country illegally. They set deadlines and threatened them with deportation if they didn't leave. The two governments deny targeting Afghans, who have fled their homeland to escape war, poverty or Taliban rule.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees said that of the 1.2 million returning Afghans, more than half had come from Iran following a March 20 government deadline for them to leave voluntarily or face expulsion.
Iran has deported more than 366,000 Afghans this year, including refugees and people in refugee-like situations, according to the agency.
Iran's 12-day war war with Israel also has driven departures. The highest number of returns was on June 26, when 36,100 Afghans crossed the border in one day.
Afghan families are being uprooted once again, arriving with scant belongings, exhausted, hungry, scared about what awaits them in a country many of them have never even set foot in, said Arafat Jamal, the UNHCR representative in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
He said women and girls are particularly worried, as they fear the restrictions on freedom of movement and basic rights such as education and employment.
More than half of Afghanistan relies on humanitarian assistance. But opposition to Taliban policies and widespread funding cuts are worsening the situation, with aid agencies and nongovernmental organisations cutting back on basic services like education and health care.
Iran urges foreigners to leave quickly Iran's attorney general, Mohammad Movahedi Azad, said Saturday that foreigners in the country illegally should leave as soon as possible or face prosecution, state media reported.
Foreign nationals, especially brothers and sisters from Afghanistan whom we have hosted for years, help us (so) that illegal individuals leave Iran in the shortest period, the official IRNA news agency quoted Azad as saying.
Iranian authorities said in April that out of more than 6 million Afghans, up to 2.5 million were in the country illegally.
Iran's top diplomat in Kabul, Ali Reza Bikdeli, visited the Dogharoun border crossing with Afghanistan and promised to facilitate the repatriation of Afghans, state TV reported.
Iranians have complained about the increasing presence of Afghans in recent months, with some accusing them of spying for Israel since the outbreak of the war.
The Taliban pledge amnesty and help Earlier this month, on the religious festival of Eid Al-Adha, the Taliban prime minister said all Afghans who fled the country after the collapse of the former Western-backed government were free to return, promising they would be safe.
Afghans who have left the country should return to their homeland, Mohammad Hassan Akhund said in a message on X. Nobody will harm them. Come back to your ancestral land and live in an atmosphere of peace." On Saturday, the Taliban said a high-ranking ministerial delegation traveled to western Herat province to meet some of the Afghans returning from Iran.
The officials pledged swift action to address the urgent needs of the returnees and ensure that essential services and support are provided to ease their reintegration, according to a statement from the Taliban deputy spokesman Hamdullah Fitrat on X.
Meanwhile, Pakistani authorities have set a June 30 deadline for some 1.3 million Afghans to leave. Pakistan aims to expel a total of 3 million Afghans this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran could again enrich uranium 'in matter of months': IAEA chief
UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi says Iran likely will be able to begin to produce enriched uranium "in a matter of months," despite damage to several nuclear facilities from US and Israeli attacks, CBS News said Saturday. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said Iranian nuclear facilities might be "still standing" after US President Donald Trump insisted Iran's nuclear program had been set back "decades."(File/Reuters) Israel launched a bombing campaign on Iranian nuclear and military sites on June 13, saying it was aimed at keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon -- an ambition the Islamic republic has consistently denied. The United States subsequently bombed three key facilities used for Tehran's atomic program. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the extent of the damage to the nuclear sites is "serious," but the details are unknown. US President Donald Trump insisted Iran's nuclear program had been set back "decades." But Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said "some is still standing." "They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that," Grossi said Friday, according to a transcript of the interview released Saturday. Another key question is whether Iran was able to relocate some or all of its estimated 408.6-kilo (900-pound) stockpile of highly enriched uranium before the attacks. The uranium in question is enriched to 60 percent -- above levels for civilian usage but still below weapons grade. That material, if further refined, would theoretically be sufficient to produce more than nine nuclear bombs. Grossi admitted to CBS: "We don't know where this material could be." "So some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved. So there has to be at some point a clarification," he said in the interview. For now, Iranian lawmakers voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA and Tehran rejected Grossi's request for a visit to the damaged sites, especially Fordo, the main uranium enrichment facility. "We need to be in a position to ascertain, to confirm what is there, and where is it and what happened," Grossi said. In a separate interview with Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures" program, Trump said he did not think the stockpile had been moved. "It's a very hard thing to do plus we didn't give much notice," he said, according to excerpts of the interview. "They didn't move anything." US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday underscored Washington's support for "the IAEA's critical verification and monitoring efforts in Iran," commending Grossi and his agency for their "dedication and professionalism." The full Grossi interview will air on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on Sunday.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Israel Iran News Live Updates: Khamanei absent as Iran mourns top military leaders
Israel Iran Ceasefire Live: The surprise ceasefire between Iran and Israel, brokered by the Trump administration, has raised fresh questions about the future of US policy in the Middle East. Despite the truce, uncertainty remains over whether it will hold and how Washington will proceed, particularly with President Trump sidelining traditional diplomatic channels and relying on a small circle of White House advisers. US special envoy Steve Witkoff has called for comprehensive peace talks with Tehran. However, observers note confusion within Iran's leadership and question whether a negotiating team with real authority exists. Despite this, back-channel discussions are reportedly underway. The ceasefire followed US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, which Trump claimed had obliterated the programme. But a preliminary US intelligence assessment suggests only limited disruption, with key facilities damaged but not destroyed. Iran retains significant military capability, including the ability to threaten US forces. 01:23 (IST) Jun 29 Israel Iran News Live: Rights groups alarmed as Iran's spy crackdown targets alleged traitors and dissenters Iran's wave of arrests and fast-tracked executions has drawn international concern. Amnesty International condemned the 'grossly unfair trials,' warning the campaign risks becoming a wider crackdown on political opposition. With no access to lawyers and ethnic minorities also detained, observers fear the regime is using the security threat to silence critics under the guise of national defence. 01:22 (IST) Jun 29 Israel Iran News Live: Iran launches spy hunt after Israeli attacks Following Israel's deadly strikes on June 13, Iran has intensified efforts to root out suspected spies. Authorities have urged citizens to report suspicious behaviour like wearing hats or sunglasses at night. More than 10,000 microdrones were reportedly found in Tehran. Officials claim these drones were used in assassinations of nuclear scientists and other top figures. 01:21 (IST) Jun 29 Israel Iran News Live: Iran slams US rhetoric as mourners chant 'boom, boom, Tel Aviv' As black-clad crowds filled Tehran's streets, Iranian state TV showed banners declaring 'Boom, boom, Tel Aviv.' The chants followed sharp US criticism of Khamanei, condemned by Iran's foreign ministry. President Masoud Pezeshkian and Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani were present, but tensions remain high as back-and-forth strikes with Israel leave the region on edge despite the declared ceasefire. 01:20 (IST) Jun 29 Bagheri, Salami, Tehranchi among Iran's fallen honoured Major General Mohammad Bagheri, killed with his wife and daughter, was among those honoured. Nuclear scientist Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and his wife were also laid to rest. Revolutionary Guards commander Hossein Salami, killed on day one of the conflict, will be buried Sunday. Of the 60 dead, four were women and four were children, state media reported. 01:20 (IST) Jun 29 Israel Iran News Live: Khamanei absent as Iran mourns top military leaders Iran held a massive state funeral on Saturday for 60 figures killed in its war with Israel, including top generals and scientists. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei did not attend the ceremony, though he had earlier declared 'victory' in a video message. Thousands of mourners chanted anti-Israel and anti-US slogans, waving photos of the dead. A sudden ceasefire between Israel and Iran, facilitated by the Trump administration, has sparked fresh debate over the future direction of US involvement in the Middle East. While the truce has brought a pause to escalating tensions, analysts remain uncertain about how long it will last — or what comes next. US President Donald Trump, operating largely through a small group of White House advisers and bypassing traditional diplomatic institutions, played a central role in securing the agreement. This unconventional approach has left many questioning the durability of the deal and the strategic goals behind it. US special envoy Steve Witkoff has since urged a broader peace framework involving Tehran. However, confusion within the Iranian leadership has cast doubt on whether any team on the Iranian side has the authority or unity to negotiate meaningful terms. Despite the uncertainty, unofficial communication channels between the two sides are reportedly active. The ceasefire followed recent US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. President Trump had earlier claimed that the attacks crippled Iran's nuclear programme. But a preliminary assessment by American intelligence suggests the strikes caused only limited damage, with several key sites hit but not destroyed. Iran's military remains largely intact and still poses a potential threat to US assets in the region, even as both sides publicly commit to the ceasefire for now. The evolving situation has left many observers cautious, with some warning that the truce could be temporary unless backed by structured negotiations and clearer commitments from both sides.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
What is the legality of U.S. strikes on Iran?
The story so far: On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump launched military strikes on Iran, joining its ally Israel in efforts to derail Iran's nuclear programme, which both countries claim is approaching weapons production. Iran retaliated the following day with missile attacks on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. After nearly two weeks of escalating hostilities, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. What is a lawful exercise of self-defence? The UN Charter, under Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances — a claim of self-defence under Article 51 or with the UN Security Council's (UNSC) authorisation. The restrictive interpretation, grounded in the text of Article 51, permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack that is already under way. A more permissive interpretation allows for self-defence in response to an armed attack that is imminent. This broader interpretation, often referred to as anticipatory self-defence, has been endorsed in several UN-affiliated reports. Notably, the 2004 report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change affirmed that 'a threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate'. These criteria are derived from the famous Caroline case, which established that the use of force is lawful only when the need for self-defence is 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Over time, many states have argued that the Caroline standard is too rigid to address contemporary security threats. This has led to attempts to reinterpret and expand the notion of imminence, giving rise to the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Under this doctrine, a state may use force not only in response to an attack that is imminent but also during what is perceived as the 'last window of opportunity' to neutralise a threat posed by an adversary with both the intent and capability to strike. The U.S. has been a leading proponent of this doctrine, invoking it to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 'Pre-emptive self-defence lacks the requisite state practice and opinio juris to qualify as customary international law. States are generally reluctant to endorse its legality, as the absence of an imminent threat renders the doctrine highly susceptible to misuse,' Prabhash Ranjan, Professor at Jindal Global Law School, told The Hindu. Did Iran pose an 'imminent' threat? The U.S. has not submitted an Article 51 notification to the UNSC declaring its strikes on Iran as self-defence. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described them as a precision operation to neutralise 'threats to national interest' and an act of 'collective self-defence' of U.S. forces and its ally, Israel. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, on June 12, the UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its non-proliferation obligations, while noting that inspectors have been unable to confirm whether the programme is 'exclusively peaceful'. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initially told Congress that while Iran had stockpiled materials, it was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, she later warned that Iran could do so 'within weeks,' after President Trump claimed Iran could develop one 'within months.' Dr. Ranjan noted that the criteria for determining an 'imminent threat' remain highly contested, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has never ruled on the legality of anticipatory self-defence or pre-emptive strikes. 'For the U.S. to credibly invoke pre-emptive self-defence, it must present clear evidence of both Iran's intent and capability to strike in the near future. This is a difficult threshold to meet, given that Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon,' he said. He added that ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations indicate that diplomatic means were still available. What about collective self-defence? Under Article 51 of the Charter, Israel can call on the assistance of its allies to exercise collective self-defence against an attack. 'Israel's strikes on Iran, framed as pre-emptive action against perceived nuclear threats, are legally suspect. This, in turn, casts doubt on the legitimacy of any claim to collective self-defence,' Dr. Ranjan said. Israel has also sought to justify its military offensive as part of an 'ongoing armed conflict,' citing a history of attacks by groups like Hamas and the Houthis, which it claims act as Iranian proxies. However, to legally sustain this argument, Israel must meet the 'effective control' test set by the ICJ in Nicaragua versus U.S. (1986). This is a high threshold to meet since it requires proof that Iran exercises 'overall control' over these groups beyond merely funding or arming them. What are the implications? Allowing states to invoke pre-emptive self-defence would effectively grant powerful nations the licence to unilaterally use force based on mere conjecture. This would further weaken the already fragile rules-based international order. It is, therefore, crucial to resist expanding legal definitions of what constitutes an imminent threat, particularly when punitive action by the UNSC against permanent members like the U.S. remains unlikely due to their veto power.
