Regional Summit Addresses Impact of War

Yesterday the government of Afghanistan hosted representatives from 14 countries in the region to address the impact of three decades of war. The gathering focused on refugees, economic development, drug-trafficking and terrorism.



In addition to Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, participants at the conference included Russia, China, India, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and the United Arab Emirates.

Representatives of 15 mostly Western countries and a dozen regional and international organizations also attended as observers. They included the United States, Britain, Germany, the United Nations, the European Union, and NATO.

Below is a report from the Associated Press.

“KABUL - Afghanistan and regional heavyweights have agreed to work together to fight terrorism and drug-trafficking and pursue economic development — a formidable agenda in a neighbourhood fraught with power struggles and rivalries.

On Thursday, the Afghan government played host to 14 other countries in the region, a peculiar role for a nation at war for more than three decades.

The issues they discussed were not new. What is new is that these countries agreed to work as a team to solve common problems. The hope is that regional co-operation will build confidence and erode decades of mistrust. And that, in turn, could help foster stability and greater prosperity.

"Afghanistan recognizes out of a grim experience of the past that it is only in stability and harmony and peace in this region that Afghanistan can prosper and be stable," President Hamid Karzai said in his opening remarks.

The conference, held under heavy security in Kabul, was a follow-up to the first "Heart of Asia" meeting held in November in Istanbul.

Both sessions took place after the U.S.-led NATO coalition decided to end its combat mission in Afghanistan by the close of 2014. While that deadline likely hastened work to foster more regional co-operation, the meetings are more of a recognition that an unstable Afghanistan threatens the entire region.

"Whatever happens in Afghanistan affects us in one way or another," said Ahmet Davutoglu, foreign minister of Turkey and co-chairman of the event.

"In order to build confidence, one needs to commit to working together, to leave past negative memories behind and positively reconstruct future expectations."

The 15 nations that participated in the conference were: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan. Representatives of 15 other countries, most of them Western, and a dozen regional and international organizations also attended.

Rivalries abound.

Pakistan and India, for instance, have fought three major wars since the two were carved out of British India in 1947. India and Afghanistan recently signed a strategic partnership agreement, adding to concerns in Islamabad that New Delhi was increasing its influence on Pakistan's western flank. Iran feels threatened by any long-term presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and rivals Saudi Arabia for domination of the Persian Gulf.

Enhanced co-operation could also stall over an inability to find a political resolution to the Afghan war.

The Taliban have been willing to hold discussions with the United States but have rejected talks with the Afghan government — though Karzai insists that Taliban leaders have spoken with his government in private. The Taliban have announced their intent to open an office in Qatar. Karzai has backed that plan, but has been pushing Saudi Arabia as a venue for any possible talks.

Karzai announced at the conference that Salahuddin Rabbani, the head of the high peace council, would visit Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in the near future. Rabbani is the son of former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was killed in September 2011 by a suicide bomber posing as a peace emissary from the Taliban.

At the Istanbul conference, the nations identified more than 40 steps that could be taken to build confidence in the region. On Thursday, they agreed to:

—Improve the exchange of information about commercial opportunities and trade conditions; enhance co-operation among chambers of commerce; and develop a strategy to develop interconnecting infrastructure across the region — with support from international partners.
—Broaden co-operation and exchanges in the fields of education and science.
—Develop joint plans for disaster management.
—Counter the production, trafficking and consumption of opium, other narcotic drugs.
—Work together to fight terrorism.

The conference communique states that terrorism and violent extremism must be addressed in all their forms, "including the dismantling of terrorist sanctuaries and safe havens, as well as disrupting all financial and tactical support for terrorism."

This issue is aimed at Iran and Pakistan, which have been accused of not doing enough to counter militancy, or secretly facilitating it.

Iran has denied allegations that it provides financial support to militants.

Pakistan also bristles at allegations that it gives sanctuary to insurgents who attack Afghan and foreign forces across the border.

"If I believe that my future prosperity is linked with Afghans, then how can someone who is harming Afghanistan not be harming me?" Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar asked reporters, rhetorically, at a news conference after the conference.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi expressed support for regional co-operation, especially on drug-trafficking, but used his speech to criticize the U.S.-led military coalition. He said the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan has worsened security and led to a surge in narcotic drug production and trafficking.

The Iranian said "a particular country" intends to prolong its military presence in Afghanistan in "pursuit of its extra-regional objectives." It was clear that he was referring to the United States, which plans to keep some troops in Afghanistan after 2014 to train Afghan forces and battle terrorism.

In the spirit of co-operation, however, Iran agreed to lead the education initiative — and the United States and Australia signed up to work on that issue too.

Kazakhstan has agreed to host the group's third meeting in the first half of next year in Astana.”

Iran, Afghanistan and the Deadly Impact of Sanctions

Bloomberg reported this week that Afghanistan’s commerce minister “hopes the U.S. will give it leeway from economic sanctions intended to curb imports of oil from Iran.“

“Afghanistan’s trade with Iran has grown to more than $1 billion annually, placing Iran second after Pakistan’s $3 billion when transit trade via the Pakistani port of Karachi is included. The next-largest trade partners are China and India, Ahady said.

“Iran is becoming a very large trade partner,” Ahady said during a briefing yesterday for reporters in Washington. The estimated $1 billion in commerce with Iran is dominated by oil and fuel, as well as some consumer and industrial goods, he said.

Trade with Pakistan continues to be hampered by border delays and regulatory disagreements that too often require high- level intervention and cost Afghan business owners in the meantime, Ahady said.”

The U.S. announced at the end of March that if third countries do not reduce or stop their oil purchases and commercial dealings with the Central Bank of Iran, those countries would not be allowed to do any business with the United States.

What does this mean for regional security?

The summary recommendations from this conference held in 2008 remain central and fundamental to a path forward that embraces the basic needs of Afghans and the region.

The 15 page summary is a great background resource. This is the key point.

"...policymakers who redesigned post-war Western Europe rejected a country-by-country planning approach in favor of a regional approach that integrated the region’s economy and laid the groundwork for what became the European Union"

Among the key Recommendations

“Future efforts by the United States and NATO to build stability in Afghanistan should be addressed in a regional context. Giving all the states in the region common and mutually beneficial economic ties will pay large security and political dividends that the current bilateral agreements alone cannot provide.

Iran and the United States should begin a bilateral discussion on how best to bring stability to Afghanistan. Because stabilizing Afghanistan is one of the few areas where Iran and the United States have a common interest, a diplomatic dialogue has considerable promise and need not be linked to the issues that still divide the two countries.”

*****

Conclusions about Iran

It is important not to over-generalize the intentions of Iran in Afghanistan (or indeed any of the other regional or international actors) or to limit them simply to governments. There are important Iranian actors, including some Afghan refugees, who can play a critical role independent of the policies of the Iranian government.

Participants drew the following conclusions about how Iran and Afghanistan currently view their relationship:

1. Although Iran plays a much larger role in Afghanistan today than it has at any time since the mid-19th century, its policy toward the country is superseded by other international priorities, particularly its relationship with the United States. This makes it difficult or impossible for the Afghan government to establish independent bilateral relations with Iran.

2. The large Afghan refugee presence in Iran has given the two countries a closer network of ties than ever before, and refugees’ remittances to Afghanistan are a vital part of the Afghan economy. The refugees’ continued presence in Iran, however, is a source of tension because the majority are undocumented aliens subject to deportation. Iranians also see them as unwelcome immigrants who increase the competition for jobs.

3. There is a prejudice toward Afghan refugees returning from Iran, where they were better integrated into society than were refugees in Pakistan. Afghans educated in Iran have been denied positions in the government and NGOs, resulting in a “brain drain” that Afghanistan can ill afford.

4. Afghanistan sees itself as the victim of a U.S.-Iranian rivalry that is an uncomfortable reminder of its earlier history as a buffer state where its interests were sacrificed to the priorities of others. Although the Afghan government would like to see better cooperation between these two powers, it fears the consequences of any arrangements made without its participation.

*****

Conclusion:

“Because U.S. and NATO policy for managing relations between Afghanistan and its neighbors is limited to specific issues and projects, there has been no attempt to integrate them into a regional framework.

Participants noted that the policymakers who redesigned post-war Western Europe rejected a country-by-country planning approach in favor of a regional approach that integrated the region’s economy and laid the groundwork for what became the European Union. Although no one was optimistic about achieving such an ambitious goal in Central and South Asia, it was agreed that there should be much more emphasis on projects that go beyond merely linking countries to their neighbors and instead focus on economic integration. The key to achieving stability in the region is by ensuring that the success of each is a vital concern of all.”

Tag: Regional Security Summit in Tajikistan

Regional Security Summit in Tajikistan

The President’s of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan began meeting yesterday in the Tajik capital Dushanbe for discussions on regional security.

“The four leaders – who were together for Nowruz celebrations hosted by the Tajik leader –discussed matters of mutual interest, including ways and means to strengthen trade and economic cooperation, among their countries.”

In addition to serious regional security concerns, the meetings have been dominated by needs of the participants to produce, sell and purchase critically needed energy supplies.

Turkmenistan has one of the world’s largest reserves of natural gas and has long sought access to markets in India and Pakistan. They are also interested in an alternative to the northern route that is controlled by Russia.

The Iran-Pakistan pipeline is in red below. A US-India nuclear deal (done outside the NPT) convinced the government of India to back out of the project. See the link below for more details.

“In a clear snub to the United States over its sanction threats, Pakistan has reassured Iran and other regional countries that the proposed gas pipeline projects will go ahead as planned.

Ahead of a key regional security summit in the Tajik capital, President Asif Ali Zardari told his counterparts from Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan that his country was committed to completing the Iran-Pakistan (IP) and Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline projects. “I look forward to working with you on all issues of mutual interest,” he added.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned earlier this month that Pakistan could face US sanctions if it pressed ahead with the gas pipeline project with Iran. “[This] would be particularly damaging to Pakistan because their economy is already quite shaky,” Clinton had told a Congressional hearing.

At Sunday’s quadrilateral meeting in Dushanbe, Presidents Asif Zardari, Hamid Karzai, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Emomali Rahmon renewed their resolve to put up a joint fight against terrorism, militancy and drug trafficking for a ‘win-win situation’. They also agreed to tap the full economic potential of the region by strengthening trade and economic cooperation among them.”

***

“Presidential spokesperson Farhatullah Babar later said that President Zardari underscored the need for enhanced regional cooperation to overcome the drug trafficking-militancy nexus – a major impediment in the trade and economic development of the region. The president said he had taken up the issue at international level and would continue to pursue it adding. “We must work together.”

Additional Resource: Emphasize Regional Diplomacy, AFSC

Out of the Loop: The Future of Drones | Shane Harris

Shane Harris reveals the dangers of relying on robotic/computer technology for modern weapons systems. He does not neglect the threats to international law and morality as well.

“In 1988, the U.S.S. Vincennes, a guided missile cruiser on patrol in the Persian Gulf, shot down an Iranian passenger jet, after the ship’s Aegis targeting system mistook it for a military fighter. The crew of the Vincennes could tell from the plane’s course, speed, and radio signal that it was a civilian aircraft. But Aegis, which had been programmed to identify large Soviet bombers, said otherwise.

“Even though the hard data was telling the crew that the plane wasn’t a fighter jet, they trusted what the computer was telling them more,” Singer writes in Wired for War. “Aegis was on semiautomatic mode, but not one of the eighteen sailors and officers on the command crew was willing to challenge the computer’s wisdom. They authorized it to fire.”

Singer notes that the Navy had such faith in Aegis’s abilities to identify a true enemy that the Vincennes was the only ship in the area allowed to fire on its own volition, without the crew seeking permission from more senior officers in the fleet. All 299 passengers and crew aboard the Iranian jet died, among them sixty-six children.”

Here is the introduction...

"In the game of life and evolution there are three players at the table: human beings, nature, and machines. I am firmly on the side of nature. But nature,I suspect, is on the side of the machines."

—George Dyson in Darwin Among the Machines

"If you want to understand how human beings stack up next to machines in the conduct of modern warfare, consider this:

In World War II, it took a fleet of 1,000 B-17 bombers—flown, navigated, and manned by a crew of 10,000 men—to destroy one Axis ground target. American bombs were so imprecise that, on average, only one in five fell within 1,000 feet of where they were aimed. Aerial bombing was a clumsy affair, utterly dependent on the extraordinary labor of human beings.

Just one generation later, that was no longer true. In the Vietnam War, it took thirty F-4 fighter-bombers, each flown and navigated by only two men, to destroy a target. That was a 99.4 percent reduction in manpower. The precision of attack was also greatly enhanced by the first widespread use of laser-guided munitions.

After Vietnam, humans’ connection to air war became more attenuated, and less relevant. In the Gulf War, one pilot flying one plane could hit two targets. The effectiveness of the human-machine pairing was breathtaking. A single “smart bomb” could do the work of 1,000 planes dropping more than 9,000 bombs in World War II. By the time the United States went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, one pilot in one plane could destroy six targets. Their weapons were guided by global positioning satellites orbiting thousands of miles above the surface of the earth. And increasingly, the pilots weren’t actually inside their planes anymore.

The historical trend is sobering. As aircraft and weapons have become more precise, human beings have become less essential to the conduct of war. And that may suit the military just fine."

Do Drones Undermine Democracy?
P.W. Singer | 21 January 2012 | New York Times

"I do not condemn these strikes; I support most of them. What troubles me, though, is how a new technology is short-circuiting the decision-making process for what used to be the most important choice a democracy could make. Something that would have previously been viewed as a war is simply not being treated like a war.

THE change is not limited to covert action. Last spring, America launched airstrikes on Libya as part of a NATO operation to prevent Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government from massacring civilians. In late March, the White House announced that the American military was handing over combat operations to its European partners and would thereafter play only a supporting role."

US Drones Patrolling Its Skies Provokes Outrage in Iraq
Eric Schmitt and Michael Schmidt | 30 January 2012 | New York Times

"A senior American official said that negotiations were under way to obtain authorization for the current drone operations, but Ali al-Mosawi, a top adviser to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki; Iraq’s national security adviser, Falih al-Fayadh; and the acting minister of interior, Adnan al-Asadi, all said in interviews that they had not been consulted by the Americans.

Mr. Asadi said that he opposed the drone program: “Our sky is our sky, not the U.S.A.’s sky.”

Additional articles on Drones.

Afghan Refugee Strategy a Big Mistake | UNHCR

In 2002 the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) embarked on an ambitious strategy to facilitate the return of Afghan refugees to their country.

Last Tuesday (December 27), Peter Nicolaus, UNHCR representative in Afghanistan described the strategy as the “biggest mistake the UNHCR ever made”.

“The head of the UN refugee programme in Afghanistan on Tuesday described its strategy in the war-wracked country since 2002 as the "biggest mistake UNHCR ever made".

Almost a quarter of the population of Afghanistan is made up of refugees returning from Pakistan and Iran. Many find themselves homeless, or living in slums under tarpaulin.

But Peter Nicolaus, UNHCR representative in Afghanistan, said the international community had failed to help returnees find a means of earning a living and therefore reintegrating into society.”

…

"This is what the donor community constantly forgets. This has been overlooked and it's still overlooked. Nobody has taken this seriously. It's a tragedy.

"We are now -- for the first time -- bringing this up in the spring conference."

An international conference with Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and the refugee agency is to be held in April to present the new long term strategy.

In November, The State Department Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan reported that U.S. economic and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan has peaked in 2010 at $4.1 billion and would be reduced to $2.5 billion this year.

Bringing Refugees Home, the challenge ahead spells out some of the recent history.

See this link for other resources - and poems - on Afghan refugees.

CIA Vacates Pakistan Drone Base | US Drone in Iran

The CIA has vacated the Shamsi air base in western Pakistan. The base has been used to help coordinate the CIA (not-too-secret) drone war in Pakistan's tribal areas. Attacks from the base have been reduced since the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden in May with the US increasing striking from bases in Afghanistan.

The government of Pakistan demanded the removal of the CIA after a cross border attack killed 25 soldiers.

However.

“...[a] senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the drone operations at Shamsi were classified, said that vacating the base would not end American counterterrorism operations in Pakistan. “The United States retains robust capabilities to fight Al Qaeda and its militant allies,” the official said. “Our operations will continue.”"

Pakistan responded on Sunday saying they will shot down US drones flying in their air space.

Also last week a drone called the ‘Beast of Kandahar’ crashed in Iran. It was flying out of an air base in Herat with sensitive sniffing sensors to monitor Iran nuclear program.

The government of Iran has formally complained to the Afghan Ambassador about the US drone.

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Iranian Foreign Ministry expressed its displeasure to Afghanistan’s ambassador to Iran over an American drone aircraft that Iran says flew deep into its airspace and crashed last week, a spokesman for the Afghan Foreign Ministry said Sunday.

According to Afghan officials, the drone was flown from the American and Afghan base at Shindand in western Herat Province. American officials have acknowledged the loss of an RQ-170, a C.I.A. stealth drone made by Lockheed Martin and designed to fly covert missions and collect information in hostile territory, but have declined to confirm or deny that it is the plane that Iran says it recovered.

A critical issue in the negotiations for a strategic partnership between the US and Afghanistan is the Afghan demand that their territory not be used by foreign powers to attack its neighbors.

The strategic agreement is envisioned to provide the framework for US troops to stay in the country beyond 2014 and to have control of military bases.

Bonn | Pakistan Boycott |Afghan Civil Society

Following the death of 24 soldiers in a US cross-Border raid, the Government of Pakistan is boycotting the Bonn II gathering.

“Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani on Thursday said Pakistan’s decision to boycott the Bonn Conference in protest against the NATO/ISAF attack and violation of its sovereignty, was final and taken collectively. “How we can attend the conference when our sovereignty came under attack”

Josuha Foust writing in the Atlantic predicts failure.

“So a conference about the future of Afghanistan that is meant to leave a lasting, workable regional framework in place to manage the many diplomatic, economic, and security consequences of an American withdrawal might not include four of the most important participants: Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, or the Taliban. And yet, the other 90 countries that participate hope to accomplish something.

The sad reality of the U.S. endgame in Afghanistan is that it is happening completely outside a consideration of Afghanistan's politics. The war in Afghanistan is a fundamentally political war, and U.S. policymakers continue to ignore Afghanistan's (and Pakistan's) politics at tremendous cost. The worst political excesses get identified and removed, but the strategic planning -- what little there is -- is happening within American preferences and beliefs, not Afghan ones.”

In addition to the need for participation from all parties to the conflict, Afghan civil society networks have also lobbied to have more representation.

Afghan Civil Society Message to Bonn Gathering on what is expected from Government.

The second phase of transition (Inteqal) should be based on a thorough evaluation of the first phase and the lessons learned, giving full consideration to the necessary capacities, resources (human and financial), and the demands and satisfaction of the people,

Equal attention must be paid to the civilian dimension of the transition process (quality of the delivery of social services without any gender or ethnic discrimination, good governance, effective measures to curb corruption, promotion and protection of human rights, as well as the reform and independence of the judiciary) in parallel to the military aspect of transition (qualitative and quantitative support for Afghan security institutions),

It should give priority to implementing the rule of law, supporting and strengthening the democratic process and institutions (i.e. reform and independence of the electoral process, in particular), and to merit-based appointments,

It should strengthen healthy working relations between the judiciary, legislative, and executive, and specifically to establish a professional, effective, and responsive cabinet.

Beginning tomorrow you can start to check-in to a livestream of the civil society gathering that will take place on the 2nd and 3rd of December.

UNHCR | Large Drop in Afghans Returning in 2011

There may be no greater indicator of conditions inside Afghanistan than the decisions of refugees to return or those displaced to leave.

Decades of war created an Afghan refugee crisis that has been one of the worlds largest. This vulnerable community has at times been seen as a destabilizing factor in Iran and Pakistan, the countries that host the largest number.

UNHCR has issued a statement that the number of Afghans returning from Pakistan has fallen by almost 60% since last year.

The lack of jobs, land, shelter, and violence from increased fighting in eastern Afghanistan, are the most frequently cited reasons for not returning.

In Iran, the number of Afghans returning is increasing due in part to a government decision cut off subsidies for food, fuel, and other commodities for both Iranian and Afghan families.

The reductions were part of government cost-cutting measures after the country was placed under US-led international sanction over its nuclear program.

An estimated 1.7 million Afghan remain as refugees in Pakistan with the majority living in the border provinces of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Due to weather, the UN does not seek to repatriate Afghans from Pakistan during the winter months.

About 4.6 million Afghans have returned since 2002, helped by the UNHCR and its government counterparts. In total, about 5.7 million have returned from Pakistan and Iran, roughly 25 per cent of the total population.

This link has more background, including reports and poetry.

Post-War on Terror? Implications from a regional perspective

This paper examines three possible impacts of the death of Osama bin Laden on the war on terror from the perspective of countries surrounding Afghanistan.

A first scenario sees America abandoning the global war on terror on the territory of Afghanistan and moving its attention to new fronts, such as containing the uprisings in the Middle East or countering the economic rise of China, which will not suit the countries surrounding Afghanistan where terrorism remains a problem.

The second trajectory may see a deeper entrenchment of the American presence in the region through the enactment of a strategic agreement between America and Afghanistan.

The third possible implication of the Bin Laden killing is the possibility of a political settlement through reconciliation with the Taliban and their integration into the Afghan political process.

The paper suggests that any alternative to regional diplomacy for regional reconciliation would be the fragmentation and partition of Afghanistan along ethnic fault lines, which is undesirable for the region and for Afghanistan itself.

Security guarantees need to come from within the region through a resumption of political dialogue and the intensification of economic relations among the region’s countries, a process that can be facilitated by regional and international organisations.


Post-War on Terror?
Implications from a regional perspective

By: Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh
Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Center | August 2011

World Refugee Day – Dangerous Trends

Yesterday was World Refugee Day. To put the crisis in context the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee released their annual report Global Trends last week.

The humanitarian impact of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are clear. Afghan and Iraqi refugees account for almost half of all refugees worldwide under UNHCR’s responsibility. The three countries hosting the largest number of refugees in order are Pakistan, Iran and Syria. The first two are almost exclusively Afghans, the last Iraqis (see figure 2).

While the number of refugee figures remained similar to 2008, the number of Internally Displaced People (IDP’s) reached an unprecedented 15.6 million. The increase was largely from tragic conflicts in Congo, Pakistan and Somalia.

Some of the figures they provide.

There were 43.3 million forcibly displaced people worldwide at the end of 2009, the highest number since the mid-1990s. Of these, 15.2 million were refugees; 10.4 million who fell under UNHCR’s responsibility and 4.8 million Palestinian refugees under UNRWA’s mandate. The figure also includes 983,000 asylum seekers and 27.1 million internally

***

Afghanistan has been the leading country of origin of refugees for the past three decades with up to 6.4 million of its citizens having sought international protection during peak years. As of the end of 2009, close to 2.9 million Afghan were still refugees. One out of four refugees in the world is from Afghanistan. Even though Afghan refugees could be found in 71 asylum countries worldwide in 2009, 96 per cent of them were located in Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran alone. Iraqis were the second largest group, with an estimated 1.8 million having sought refuge, mainly in neighboring countries. Afghan and Iraqi refugees account for almost half (45%) of all refugees under UNHCR’s responsibility worldwide.

***

Pakistan was host to the largest number of refugees worldwide (1.7 million), followed by the Islamic Republic of Iran (1.1 million) and the Syrian Arab Republic (1.05 million; Government estimate). Pakistan also hosted the largest number of refugees in relation to its economic capacity with 745 refugees per 1 USD GDP (PPP) per capita, followed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (592) and Zimbabwe (245).

***

Afghan and Iraqi refugees accounted for almost half of all refugees under UNHCR’s responsibility worldwide; one out of four refugees in the world was from Afghanistan (2.9 million). Afghans were located in 71 different asylum countries. Iraqis were the second largest refugee group, with 1.8 million having sought refuge primarily in neighboring countries.

****

Some 251,500 refugees repatriated voluntarily during 2009, the lowest figure since 1990. In contrast, more than 2.2 million IDPs were able to return, the highest in at least a decade.

Additional Resource:

The Frame - World Refugee Day Photo Blog