分类： politics

NEW YORK, UNITED NATIONS — In a rare show of unified global action on the spiraling crisis in Afghanistan, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously Monday to approve a groundbreaking resolution that presses the country’s Taliban leadership to immediately roll back its harsh restrictions on women’s rights, while also mandating action to root out militant groups operating within Afghan borders that Pakistan blames for cross-border attacks.

Sponsored by China, the resolution marks a significant update to the U.N.’s long-running diplomatic and humanitarian engagement in Afghanistan, extending the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) — the body’s official political presence in the country — through June 17, 2027. Beyond the mandate extension, the resolution lays out clear priorities for UNAMA moving forward: supporting the delivery of life-saving humanitarian aid across the country without any form of discrimination, and advancing inclusive national and local governance that guarantees full, equal, meaningful and safe participation for women, ethnic and religious minorities, youth, and people with disabilities, regardless of gender, faith, or ethnic background.

Monday’s vote comes on the heels of a fresh wave of repression against Afghan women that drew widespread international condemnation earlier this month. In Afghanistan’s western Herat Province, at least 30 women were taken into custody for alleged violations of the Taliban’s rigid Islamic dress code. The arrests sparked an uncommon public demonstration against the policy, which Taliban security forces violently dispersed. According to an official UNAMA statement, the crackdown left one protester dead and multiple others with injuries, including one staff member from medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders (MSF) among those detained.

The current restrictions on women and girls are the most sweeping since the Taliban retook full control of Afghanistan in 2021, following the chaotic military withdrawal of U.S.-led international coalition forces. The Islamist government has implemented a strict, hardline interpretation of Shariah law that includes draconian, unprecedented limits on female participation in public life: girls are banned from secondary and higher education, and women are barred from most formal employment sectors, with restrictions also extending to public space access. Ethnic and religious minority communities across the country have also faced growing targeted repression under Taliban rule.

Beyond women’s rights, the resolution addresses escalating regional tensions between Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, which has repeatedly accused the Taliban administration of harboring militant groups that carry out deadly terrorist attacks inside Pakistani territory. The Taliban has consistently denied these allegations, but the standoff between the two neighbors has erupted into open cross-border violence in recent months. Since February, when the Taliban launched retaliatory strikes against Pakistani military positions following Pakistani airstrikes on militant targets inside Afghanistan, hundreds of people on both sides have been killed in repeated clashes.

Chinese U.N. Ambassador Fu Cong, who led the resolution drafting, emphasized after the vote that the international community’s core goal is to encourage the Taliban to shift toward more inclusive governance. “We hope that the Afghan government will take more proactive measures to protect human rights, especially the rights of women, and project an image of openness, inclusivity and responsibility,” Fu told reporters following the unanimous vote.

U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Jennifer Locetta echoed the call for immediate Taliban action, noting that political progress in Afghanistan depends on the regime meeting its international commitments. “For that political process to succeed, the Taliban must act,” Locetta said. “The Taliban must meet their counterterrorism commitments, respect Afghanistan’s international obligations, end hostage diplomacy, and cease their unconscionable abuses of the human rights of women and girls.”

Pakistan’s U.N. Ambassador Asim Ahmad welcomed the resolution’s explicit recognition of the terrorist threat emanating from Afghan soil, noting that the text “expresses the council’s serious concern over the presence of terrorist groups in Afghanistan, which continue to constitute a threat to international peace and security.”

In addition to its humanitarian and security mandates, the resolution expands UNAMA’s authority to support long-term economic stability in Afghanistan, a country grappling with one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. The mission is now authorized to facilitate legitimate commercial and financial activity with Afghanistan, and to support international efforts to repatriate frozen Afghan Central Bank assets back to the country “for the benefit of the Afghan people.” The resolution also tasks UNAMA with facilitating dialogue between the Taliban administration, regional neighboring states, and the broader global community to advance a peaceful, inclusive political process for the country.

On June 15, the United States and Iran announced a landmark memorandum of understanding that stands to reshape regional security dynamics across the Middle East, marking one of the most consequential diplomatic breakthroughs in the region in recent years. U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed the framework agreement had been finalized, announcing two immediate confidence-building measures: the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint, and the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade on the waterway. Iranian officials have echoed confirmation of the deal, noting that formal negotiations over outstanding sticking points will continue over the next 60 weeks, with a formal signing scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19.

The agreement followed weeks of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, with Pakistan taking a central role as the lead intermediary that brought the two long-hostile parties back to the negotiating table. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose government led the mediation effort, announced the ceasefire ahead of the official U.S. confirmation, capping off weeks of intensive engagement with Iranian authorities, Gulf regional states, and U.S. diplomatic teams. While Qatar and other regional actors also contributed heavily to de-escalation efforts, Islamabad ultimately emerged as the primary channel for direct dialogue between Washington and Tehran.

Pakistan’s prominent role in the deal was neither a random outcome nor an inevitable assignment. For decades, Oman has served as a quiet backchannel between the U.S. and Iran, and Qatar has built a reputation as one of the Middle East’s most active neutral mediators. However, the crisis that preceded this agreement, sparked by U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets, escalated into a multifaceted threat touching maritime security, global energy markets, and broad regional stability that directly impacted Gulf states including Qatar, creating a need for a new mediation channel.

As tensions mounted, Pakistan’s role grew increasingly visible. Early rounds of high-stakes talks between senior American and Iranian delegates were hosted in Islamabad, and in the final push to avoid further military escalation, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir traveled directly to Tehran to hold security-focused talks with Iranian leadership. Pakistani diplomats and security officials simultaneously maintained constant communication with other key regional stakeholders, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, while keeping U.S. counterparts updated at every step of the process.

While the framework agreement was the product of collaborative effort across multiple negotiating parties, Pakistan carved out a unique and central role thanks to its specific diplomatic advantages. Unlike many other potential mediators, Pakistan maintained established working relationships with both Washington and Tehran at a time when direct communication between the two principal parties had broken down almost entirely. Its geographic proximity to Iran, longstanding security ties to both sides, and broad regional diplomatic reach made it an ideal trusted intermediary when the urgency to de-escalate grew.

Another key strength of Pakistan’s mediation effort was the unprecedented coordination between its civilian political leadership and military security institutions. Prime Minister Sharif provided public political leadership and set the overarching diplomatic framework for the talks, while General Munir leveraged his established regional security contacts to engage directly with Iranian defense and decision-making circles. In a crisis centered on military escalation, deterrence, and security risks, direct communication between security establishments proved just as critical as traditional diplomatic negotiations, allowing Islamabad to deliver clear, credible messages that addressed both political and security concerns for all parties.

The resulting document is not a full, permanent peace treaty, but a foundational framework designed to halt immediate escalation and create space for detailed negotiations on unresolved core issues. Even so, bringing the two bitter rivals to this point represents a significant diplomatic achievement on its own.

Beyond the immediate gains of a ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the agreement marks a notable shift in Pakistan’s global diplomatic profile. For years, Pakistan’s international standing has largely been defined by domestic security challenges, economic instability, and regional rivalries. This breakthrough offers a new narrative: Pakistan as a reliable, effective facilitator of high-stakes diplomacy during a major regional crisis.

Pakistan’s role also fits into a growing global trend: as competition between major world powers intensifies, middle powers are increasingly carving out space to shape global outcomes through proactive mediation. Qatar led groundbreaking negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban, Oman has repeatedly provided backchannels between Washington and Tehran during past periods of tension, and Turkey brokered the Black Sea Grain Initiative during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. What unites all these cases is not massive military power, but broad diplomatic access: states that maintain working relationships across competing blocs are uniquely positioned to resolve crises that larger powers cannot address directly.

Unlike traditional mediators that only provide a venue for talks, Pakistan took a comprehensive approach, combining high-level political outreach, security-to-security engagement, and in-person hosting of negotiating sessions in Islamabad. This expanded role explains why the country became increasingly central to the process as the crisis moved from open confrontation to negotiated de-escalation. In recent years, Pakistan has deepened its diplomatic engagement with Gulf states, maintained stable ties with Tehran, and expanded its diplomatic outreach beyond South Asia, giving it greater flexibility to respond to regional crises. For a country dependent on energy imports, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz also carries direct, tangible economic benefits.

Still, the breakthrough carries significant risks that cannot be overlooked. The current document is only a memorandum of understanding, not a comprehensive final settlement. The most contentious core issues – including U.S. sanctions relief, the long-term rules for Hormuz shipping, and the future of Iran’s nuclear program – remain unresolved. Disagreements have already emerged over the scope of the framework: Iranian officials claim the deal covers all active fronts including Lebanon, while Israeli officials have offered a far more narrow, cautious interpretation of the agreement’s terms. These differences could complicate negotiations over the coming 60 days.

For Pakistan, the outcome of the next phase of talks will shape its new diplomatic reputation. If negotiations succeed, Islamabad’s standing as a trusted regional mediator will grow substantially. If talks collapse, as many past Middle East diplomatic agreements have done amid intractable unresolved disputes, Pakistan will face greater diplomatic challenges, having invested significant political capital in the process.

Regardless of the final outcome, the framework agreement will be remembered for more than just its attempt to end a dangerous military confrontation. It also marks a turning point: the moment Pakistan demonstrated it can serve as an effective diplomatic bridge between competing major powers in a rapidly shifting regional and global order.

An award-nominated Sudanese journalist has been blocked from entering the United Kingdom to attend a prestigious London-based journalism awards event, in a decision that has drawn widespread criticism from media leaders and highlighted deepening barriers for Sudanese travelers amid the ongoing crisis in their home country.

Mohammed Amin, a correspondent for Middle East Eye (MEE), was shortlisted for the 2024 One World Media Journalist of the Year Award in recognition of his brave, on-the-ground reporting from Sudan, where a brutal civil war has displaced millions and left much of the country in chaos. He was scheduled to attend the upcoming awards ceremony next Wednesday, where his work would be formally recognized alongside other leading international correspondents.

However, in a notice delivered to Amin last Thursday, the UK Home Office rejected his application for an eight-day visitor visa. Officials justified the refusal by claiming they were unconvinced Amin had a genuine purpose for his trip, and asserted there was no guarantee he would leave the UK at the end of his visit. This ruling came despite formal sponsorship for the trip from MEE and a formal invitation from the One World Media Awards organizing committee, and leaves no route for appeal or administrative review of the decision.

For Amin, the outcome is not just a personal disappointment—it is a deeply unreasonable and contradictory policy that undermines the UK’s own stated commitments to transparency around Sudan’s crisis. A veteran reporter who has previously traveled to the UK multiple times to accept major journalism awards, most recently in 2022 when he received the Rory Peck Trust’s Martin Adler Prize without any visa issues, he expressed frustration at the Home Office’s assessment. “There’s a contradiction between British journalists, who consider what is happening in Sudan, and the UK government, which organises conferences about Sudan [in London] but denies visas for journalists,” he said.

He added that the blanket barriers placed on Sudanese travelers reflect a profound lack of understanding of the catastrophe unfolding in his home country, where the ongoing conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces has left hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced, and millions more facing acute hunger. Amin noted that Sudan’s war has already been largely overshadowed by other high-profile conflicts across the globe, and visa denials like his only push the crisis further out of global view.

Leaders of the One World Media Awards echoed that criticism. Interim director Chinwe Kalu-Uma called the refusal deeply disappointing, noting that Amin has continued to report from inside Sudan at great personal risk specifically to draw global attention to the crisis. “His absence from our London ceremony is itself a story about the barriers Sudanese people face, not only in their own country, but in being seen and heard beyond it,” Kalu-Uma said in a statement to MEE.

MEE editor-in-chief David Hearst also condemned the decision, arguing that the UK holds unique historic responsibility to shine a light on developments in Sudan. “That Britain of all places should deny a visa to an award-winning Sudanese journalist after a war that has devastated the country defies belief,” Hearst said. “Britain has a historic responsibility that the truth comes out about what is happening in Sudan and it is failing on all these fronts. Mohammed’s work should be encouraged and praised by the British government, and he should not be treated as an unwelcome guest.”

The visa refusal is far from an isolated incident. Since the outbreak of Sudan’s civil war in April 2023, Sudanese applicants have faced drastically increased scrutiny and barriers to UK entry. In 2024, the UK government implemented a so-called “visa brake” that blocks all new student visa applications from nationals of Sudan, alongside Afghanistan, Cameroon and Myanmar. Even for non-student visitor applicants like Amin, the process has become prohibitively difficult.

Because the British Embassy in Khartoum has remained temporarily closed since the war began, Amin was forced to travel across the border to the British High Commission in Uganda simply to complete his in-person interview, an added burden that displaced Sudanese journalists and citizens routinely face. He argued the entire system is structured to discriminate against Sudanese applicants who have already been displaced by the conflict.

Amin’s record of groundbreaking reporting has already driven tangible change in Sudan. Over the past year, his work has covered the bloody siege of el-Fasher, the role of the drug captagon in funding the civil war, and the targeting of the marginalized Kanabi community by all warring parties. When he published a viral report on the al-Tekeina village’s resistance to sustained attacks by the RSF, a delegation led by Sudan’s transitional prime minister visited the village just one day later—the first official government visit to the community in more than 60 years—and pledged funds for reconstruction.

When contacted for comment by MEE, a Home Office spokesperson stated that all visa applications are assessed on their individual merits in line with published policy, and that the department follows longstanding policy of not commenting on individual cases.

A landmark framework agreement between the United States and Iran designed to end months of open conflict and crippling blockades has brought a wave of cautious relief across much of the Middle East, even as it ignites sharp tensions with Israel and leaves core regional disputes unresolved.

Iran’s state-affiliated Mehr News Agency has published details of the draft framework, which is scheduled for formal signing this Friday. According to the outlet, the agreement mandates an immediate and permanent halt to all hostilities across every regional front — with Lebanon explicitly included as a core part of the ceasefire.

This provision has triggered an furious rebuke from top Israeli officials, who have flatly rejected the deal and refused to be bound by its terms. “Trump’s agreement does not bind us… we are not party to this agreement. It does not safeguard our security,” Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir wrote on his official Telegram channel. Ben Gvir added that Israel would accept nothing less than the full dismantling of the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz doubled down on this position, confirming that Israeli military forces will not withdraw from the so-called “security zones” Israel has established in southern Lebanon, Syrian territory, and the Gaza Strip. Data from Lebanon’s Ministry of Health underscores the heavy human cost of months of cross-border conflict: Israeli strikes across Lebanon since March 2 have killed at least 3,696 people and wounded more than 11,400 others.

The inclusion of a Lebanese ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory was a non-negotiable core demand for Iran during negotiations with Washington. Analysts warn that Israel’s outright refusal to pull back its forces could either kill the entire US-Iran deal or create an unprecedented, historic rift between the long-time allies Washington and Jerusalem.

Issam Kaysi, a research analyst at the Carnegie Middle East Center, noted that even as the deal was announced, violent exchanges continued: just one day before the framework was revealed, Hezbollah launched an attack on northern Israel, and Israel carried out retaliatory airstrikes targeting southern Beirut. Senior Israeli officials have repeatedly made clear that they reserve the right to take unilateral military action against what they deem threats in Lebanon, effectively distancing themselves from any broader US-Iran negotiated understanding. “Will the US now force a change in Israeli actions? The Israelis show no sign that they are willing to withdraw from southern Lebanon anytime soon. Will Hezbollah accept this?” Kaysi asked.

The current rift marks a sharp shift from the close alliance that defined US-Israeli relations during Donald Trump’s first term. Since 2016, the relationship between Trump and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been a cornerstone of Israel’s regional strategy. Trump’s pro-Israel policy moves — recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, relocating the US embassy to the city, and formally accepting Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights — made him a hugely popular figure in Israel, with streets and West Bank settlements even named in his honor.

But the Iran negotiations have put intense strain on this relationship. Just hours before the deal was announced, Trump publicly excoriated Netanyahu for launching new strikes in Lebanon that he said risked derailing the final agreement. “He’s a very difficult guy,” Trump told reporters of Netanyahu, adding, “and to be honest with you, he should be very thankful to us for doing this. Because if Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel wouldn’t be around for two hours.” Multiple reports confirm that during a private phone call last week, Trump went further, calling Netanyahu “fucking crazy” over his continued military campaign in Lebanon.

As of Monday, Hezbollah has not claimed responsibility for any new attacks on Israeli targets. The group issued a statement Monday expressing deep gratitude to Tehran for its unwavering commitment to including Lebanon in the broader ceasefire agreement. It praised Iran for its “consistent stand with Lebanon, its people, and its resistance, as well as for its insistence that Lebanon be a party to any agreement leading to a ceasefire.”

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun also welcomed the draft deal on Monday, saying he hoped the Washington-Tehran agreement would bring a “definitive end” to the months-long war between Israel and Hezbollah. In an official statement, Aoun praised the framework for enshrining that “Lebanon’s security and safety are an integral part of any effort to consolidate stability in the region.”

Israel has maintained its military occupation of southern Lebanon since mid-March, a move it says is necessary to respond to cross-border attacks by Hezbollah that began after Israel launched strikes on Iranian territory. Even amid Israel’s refusal to withdraw, the reported deal has already prompted some displaced Lebanese civilians to begin returning to their homes in the south, despite widespread uncertainty about whether the ceasefire will hold.

Kaysi noted that any lasting end to hostilities would eventually reopen long-simmering debates over the disarmament of Hezbollah and the Lebanese government’s efforts to establish a state monopoly on armed force across the country. With the deal still not finalized, however, much remains uncertain. As Kaysi pointed out, even as discussions of the deal progress, Israeli drones remain active over Beirut. “For now, I think the safest conclusion is that the deal may reduce regional escalation in the short term, but it does not by itself resolve the underlying disputes over Lebanon between Israel, Hezbollah/Iran, and the Lebanese government,” he said.