zeit.de
IOM Critiques Afghanistan Deportations Amidst Humanitarian Crisis
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) criticizes deportations to Afghanistan, citing extreme difficulties faced by returnees, particularly women, and hampered aid efforts due to US funding cuts and restrictive donor guidelines.
- What are the immediate impacts of deportations on Afghan returnees, based on IOM's assessment?
- Many returnees, including those who have never lived in Afghanistan or sold assets to fund previous escapes, face destitution. Women face systematic barriers to employment and education. Those who held government positions or worked as journalists/human rights activists fear Taliban persecution.
- How have geopolitical shifts and donor restrictions affected humanitarian aid efforts in Afghanistan?
- The US withdrawal as a major donor, coupled with other nations prioritizing defense spending, has severely reduced funding. Stricter donor guidelines, stemming from the non-recognition of the de facto government, hinder aid provision; for example, restrictions prevent the purchase of essential equipment like computers for registration processes at border centers.
- What are the long-term implications of current deportation practices and aid limitations for Afghanistan?
- Continued deportations, especially of those from German assistance programs, exacerbate existing vulnerabilities. Limited resources and restrictive donor policies hinder effective humanitarian support, potentially worsening the situation for returnees and undermining long-term stability. The lack of resources impacts the processing of returnees, leading to long waiting times at border crossings.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view of the situation, including perspectives from the IOM, the German government, and NGOs. While it highlights the critical situation of those deported to Afghanistan, it also acknowledges efforts made by international organizations and the German government to provide assistance. The use of direct quotes from IOM officials gives credibility and avoids framing the issue solely from one viewpoint.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective. The article uses terms like "zwangsweise zurückgeführten" (forcibly returned) which is descriptive rather than emotionally charged. However, phrases like "vor dem Nichts stehen" (facing nothing) are slightly emotive but remain within acceptable journalistic bounds given the context.
Bias by Omission
The article could benefit from including additional perspectives, such as those from Afghan refugees themselves. While the challenges faced by returnees are described, their own voices and experiences are missing. Given the complexity of the situation, perspectives from various Afghan groups including the Taliban could add further nuance. However, the limitations of accessing these perspectives in a conflict zone should be acknowledged.
Gender Bias
The article acknowledges the systemic discrimination faced by women in Afghanistan, mentioning that they are denied access to the labor market and higher education. However, more examples of gendered violence or specific cases would strengthen this aspect. The article does not focus on the appearance of women, which is positive.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the dire situation of Afghan returnees, many of whom have lost their homes and livelihoods. They face extreme hardship in restarting their lives, leading to increased poverty and vulnerability. The lack of resources and support exacerbates their poverty.