Detention. Deportation. Eviction. Exploitation. Separation. Victimization. Criminalization. Intimidation. Frustration. Exhaustion.

Those are all common experiences for refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants arriving and settled in Europe. And those experiences do not happen by chance. Throughout much of the continent, governments, politicians and the media have set out, in a very conscious and calculating manner, to create what a British Prime Minister infamously described as a “hostile environment” for people seeking sanctuary in the region — the most prosperous in the world and one supposedly committed to progressive values.

It does not have to be this way. Two years ago, we set out to end the inhumanity at and within Europe’s borders, issuing a statement that called on all of the region’s states to treat new arrivals from other parts of the world with dignity and respect.

Our campaign has a number of important features. It is Europe-wide, encompassing EU and non-EU states, and also stretches to contiguous regions such as North Africa, which are seriously impacted by European refugee and migration policies.

It is a decentralized campaign, involving around 160 civil society organizations across the region. It is a non-political campaign, based on the principle that all states, governments and political parties must be held to account for their actions.

The campaign has deliberately avoided a legalistic approach to refugee and migrant rights, given the number of organizations already pursuing this approach. It is non-discriminatory in nature, based on the principle that all people who are on the move, whether they are categorized as refugees, asylum seekers or migrants, deserve to be treated fairly.

Finally, while the campaign is certainly idealistic, it is not naive. We have not called for the abolition of all borders. We recognize that some of the people arriving in Europe might not have a right to remain there. And we acknowledge that there are bad actors involved in the movement of people — including corrupt government officials, smugglers, traffickers, criminal gangs and unscrupulous immigration and asylum advisors — all of whom must be brought to justice.

On the subject of naivety, we are also painfully aware of the extent to which the political environment for refugee and migrant protection in Europe has deteriorated, even in the short time that we have been preparing the Manifesto. And nowhere is this to be seen more clearly than here in the UK, where a new government started out in a very positive way — by scrapping the awful deportation deal with Rwanda — but which has since joined the populist race to the bottom in terms of the inhumane treatment of people on the move.

After two years of consultation, consideration and analysis, we are pleased to announce the publication of our Campaign Manifesto, which we are launching here today. We hope that you find it convincing, compelling and constructive. It has been written in an accessible and jargon-free style and published in multiple languages. And it is based on five key demands that we hope will be used as a basis for advocacy activities throughout the continent by our partner organizations.

First, save lives, and stop using the threat of death as a deterrent to new arrivals.

Second, humanize the reception arrangements provided to refugees and other migrants and, most particularly, stop the use of detention.

Third, end the policies of containment and externalization that encourage and oblige states elsewhere in the world to act as gatekeepers for Europe.

Fourth, establish safe routes that will enable people to arrive in Europe in a regular and orderly manner.

And fifth, enable people on the move who have been subjected to human rights violations by states to seek justice and redress.

If you look at the Manifesto, you will see that we make a number of specific recommendations under each of these headings, and we very much welcome any feedback that you wish to provide on them.

While the Campaign Manifesto seeks to challenge the harmful policies that undermine the psychosocial wellbeing and mental health of people on the move, it does make recommendations with respect to the specific interventions that can be made to address those issues. And that is what we are here to discuss today, thanks to our colleagues from the University of East London.

We regard this evening’s event as a landmark in the campaign, which we hope to develop in a number of ways.

First, we hope to build our capacity. The campaign is almost entirely run by volunteers and we have very few financial resources at our disposal. Please let us know if you wish to support our efforts, whether that be by donating some of your time or by making a financial contribution.

Second, we want to strengthen our network of signatory organizations, as some European countries are unrepresented or underrepresented. We are also eager to extend the network to areas at the periphery of Europe, North Africa being a good example, and encourage all signatories to engage in advocacy activities at the national and local levels, using the different language versions of the Manifesto as a basis.

Third, we aim to improve our dissemination and promotional endeavours. We will consider the production of additional language versions of the Manifesto.

We will try to establish better contact with individuals and institutions in Brussels, especially in the European Union. And we will encourage international organizations such as UNHCR and IOM to engage in more vigorous public advocacy on the issues highlighted in the Manifesto. Finally, we will make every effort to be more positive!

While the European refugee and migration situation is generally a gloomy one, we are aware of the fact that positive things are also happening, especially at the local and community levels. Looking to the future, we will be developing new methods of identifying and publicizing the many positive initiatives that are being taken to ensure that new and recent arrivals in Europe are treated in a respectful, dignified and humane manner.

This publication is an excerpt from Dr. Jeff Crisp’s keynote address delivered at the launch of the United Against Inhumanity Manifesto at the University of East London on 16 April 2026.

About the author: Dr. Jeff Crisp is a Visiting Fellow at the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, former Head of Policy Development and Evaluation at UNHCR, and a volunteer with United Against Inhumanity (UAI).

The post “Humane borders: a Manifesto for European migration and asylum policies”, by Dr. Jeff Crisp appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

The collective punishment of the Afghan people who had no say in arrangements that have pauperized them or the conditions that contributed to the death of many, poses moral as well as political questions that have largely gone unanswered.

Following the Taliban takeover in Kabul in 2021, some US$9.5 billion of Afghanistan’s external reserves were seized by the US government.  Roughly US$7 billion held in the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York, and smaller amounts held in Europe, were effectively frozen. This action triggered a long legal and political dispute over ownership and control of these assets. Under President Biden’s 2022 Executive Order 14064, US authorities split the American-held reserves into two parts: US$3.5 billion was allocated to a Swiss-based not-for-profit Foundation, the “Fund for the Afghan People” also known as the Afghan Fund in Switzerland (AFS) while the remaining US$3.5 billion was set aside for litigation claims brought by American victims of the 9/11 attacks.[1]

The freezing of Afghanistan’s central bank, Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB) reserves revived long-running litigation tied to claims by families of victims of the September 11 attacks and other terror related cases against the Taliban. Plaintiffs, in legal parlance, sought to attach, meaning to seize or take control of the DAB’s reserves held at the Federal Reserve Bank, arguing that the Taliban’s control over Afghanistan entitled a claimant in receipt of a judicial decision to pursue a legal claim against the seized reserves. Civil society organizations filed amicus briefs opposing the seizure, contending that the reserves belonged to the Afghan state and the population rather than to the Taliban as a sanctioned entity.

In a series of rulings beginning in 2022, federal courts in New York rejected attachment claims finding that DAB assets retained sovereign immunity protection under the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and could not be treated as Taliban property.[2]  In 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld these decisions, confirming that private litigants could not seize the reserves to satisfy 9/11 related judgments. Although the rulings prevented confiscation of the reserves, they did not restore Afghanistan’s legitimate access to them, leaving most of the assets beyond reach or “frozen”.

While the Afghan Fund in Switzerland is accruing interest, there has been no disbursement to-date to recapitalize the DAB although the stated aim of the AFS is to “protect, preserve, and – on a targeted basis – disburse its assets for the benefit of the Afghan people”.

Critics describe the AFS as an unprecedented form of external financial control over a sovereign state’s reserves; the legal basis for administering and allocating central bank assets in this way could be challenged.[3]  The creation of the AFS also signals that externally-held central bank assets may be exposed to political and legal risk during periods of geopolitical dispute.  At the same time, supporters of the AFS mechanism argue that it prevents misuse by a sanctioned regime even though there is no evidence that the DAB has acted unlawfully or in a manner contrary to its statutory purpose.[4]

Efforts by UAI and others to elicit information on the AFS activities and plans have not proved productive. As of mid-June 2026, the Fund’s website had not been updated for over a year with the exception of the recent announcement of the appointment of Jonathan Greenstein of the US Treasury Department to the Board of Trustees. The general lack of AFS action and transparency raise questions about its usefulness and Switzerland’s role as an enabler of US foreign policy agendas that are tantamount to imposing collective punishment on the Afghan people. Meanwhile the AFS continues to accrue interest – presumably in the millions of US$ – while Afghans struggle to survive in desperate conditions.

The outcome of Biden’s 2022 decision is a prolonged state of paralysis in which the DAB lacks access to Afghan reserves. In addition, the creation of the AFS shows the increasingly blurred line between internationally authorized sanctions and unilateral coercive measures. Although many restrictions imposed after 2021 were presented as “sanctions” against the Taliban, the use of the reserves did not arise from a UN Security Council (UNSC) sanctions regime but rather from unilateral actions by the US and other Western governments. This distinction matters because measures lacking explicit UNSC authorization, raise questions about the legality of unilateral measures such as these.

Meanwhile, the chronic poverty and harrowing deprivation suffered by millions of Afghans, have worsened as international aid budgets continue to diminish. Humanitarian organizations have repeatedly warned that funding cuts by major donors have forced reductions in food assistance, healthcare, and nutrition programmes even as millions of Afghans face hunger, drought, displacement, and economic collapse. Child malnutrition is a major concern. Nearly 40% of infants, who were less than six months when admitted for treatment, suffered severe wasting with medical complications according to the UN in June 2026.[5]

Of course, aid reductions and sanctions-related restrictions are connected. Before 2021, external assistance made up a large share of Afghanistan’s GDP and public spending. In recent times, much needed humanitarian and other support has been slashed drastically

Financial restrictions, including the freezing of central bank reserves and limits on banking transactions, have isolated Afghanistan from global markets, restricted liquidity, and weakened private-sector confidence. Sanctions-related banking barriers have also complicated trade, disrupted remittance flows, and hindered humanitarian operations even where formal exemptions exist.

The Afghan case serves as a stark reminder that while sanctions and financial restrictions are formally aimed at governing authorities, their real effects are borne primarily by affected citizens including children born into desperate levels of poverty and deprivation.

The post “Deepening deprivation blights Afghan lives while politics obstruct the release of seized sovereign reserves” appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

This keynote explores how detention, deportation systems, and undocumented status generate forms of legal precarity that profoundly shape psychosocial wellbeing. It connects border regimes and immigration policy to lived experiences of uncertainty, stigma, and suspended belonging. Moving beyond narrow individualised framings, the talk situates distress within the structural and relational conditions that produce it. It argues that humane and effective responses to forced migration must address legal architecture and public narrative alongside care and support.

When we witness the suffering of people labelled as asylum seekers, refugees, and undocumented people, our immediate societal impulse is often to reach for the vocabulary of Western psychology. We speak of “trauma”, stress, and resilience. We look at individuals and try to diagnose their pain.

But what if the frameworks we use to understand this distress are narrowing our vision?

Mainstream Western psychology and psychiatry operate on a straightforward, almost mechanistic logic: if you want to understand a person, you break them down into constituent parts (their thoughts, emotions, behaviours, symptoms, and diagnoses). The assumption is that if you treat the individual parts, you heal the person. However, this clinical vocabulary is far from a neutral or universal truth. It emerged from highly specific Euro-American traditions. While it can be useful in certain clinical contexts, it carries a distinct danger when applied to forced migration: it locates the pathology entirely within the person’s interiority. By focusing solely on the individual’s mind as the site of dysfunction, we effectively sanitise and obscure the hostile social, legal, and political conditions that actively produce and sustain that suffering.

The Performance of “Trauma”

In the context of the global border regime, this clinical over-coding takes on a deeply bureaucratic, almost violent significance. People who were forced to migrate find themselves navigating legal, humanitarian, and clinical systems that demand their lived experiences be rendered legible to Western metrics of trauma.

To secure safety or legal status, individuals are required to narrate their deepest histories of displacement in ways that are linear, coherent, and recognisable to the state (which includes within specific linguistic registers). Within these administrative spaces, fear is transformed into a form of currency; suffering becomes an objectified asset that must be repeatedly displayed, performed, and verified.

This system traps people within rigid, dehumanising dichotomies. They are forced to occupy the script of either the passive, completely shattered victim or, conversely, the hyper-resilient, idealised hero. This reductive casting privileges easily pathologised, discrete expressions of distress (such as the neat criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)) while utterly delegitimising the more pervasive, insidious forms of suffering that define daily life at the border.

Legal Precarity as a Living Environment

We often talk about “legal precarity” as if it were a neutral administrative category or a temporary state of limbo. Precarity functions as a totalising psychological, somatic, and relational environment. To live indefinitely without knowing whether you will be permitted to stay, work, settle, form safe relationships, or imagine a future is to be cast into a chronic state of suspended belonging. This suspension fundamentally fractures a person’s phenomenological relationship with time, turning the future from a horizon of hope into an unpredictable source of dread. It erodes the capacity to trust and estranges one’s relationship to community. When we look closely at this environment, we see that acute psychological distress is not merely a psychological artifact carried forward from past experiences of conflict or persecution. It is being actively, dynamically manufactured in the present moment by the structural violence of systems that deliberately keep people in prolonged states of state-enforced uncertainty and hyper-conditionality. 

The border is not just a geographical boundary; it is a moving psychological apparatus that replicates itself within the very bodies and minds of everyone, especially those forced to navigate it in this alienating way.

The Risk of Therapeutic Containment

This poses a profound ethical challenge for those of us in the helping professions. Practitioners, therapists, and humanitarian workers offer vital spaces of human connection and relief. But we must ask an uncomfortable question: what are the limits of our interventions when they take place within systems that continue to systematically inflict harm?

If care and psychosocial support are offered in a vacuum (entirely divorced from an explicit commitment to rights and structural justice) there is a distinct risk that our work degenerates into a tool of containment. Instead of acting as a site of healing, the therapeutic space can inadvertently become a mechanism that helps marginalised people adjust to, tolerate, and endure hostile state architectures that remain fundamentally inhumane. Care without a critique of power subtly shifts the burden of adaptation onto the shoulders of the oppressed, leaving the oppressive system entirely unchallenged.

Shifting the Paradigm Toward Justice

If we are to respond meaningfully to the psychosocial impact of forced migration, we must radically expand our understanding of what wellbeing is. 

Well-being is not a product of individual coping mechanisms, cognitive restructuring, resilience or privatised clinical treatment. It is co-constituted by material and social realities: unrestricted access to safety, legal protection, collective community, meaningful activity, equity and belonging, and the concrete viability of a future.

Humane responses to forced migration must therefore move resolutely beyond individualised compassion or paternalistic charity. We must step away from the narrow question of how best to support individuals who are suffering, and instead ask the more urgent, uncomfortable question: what structural changes are we willing to fight for to dismantle the very systems that manufacture that suffering in the first place?

This publication is an excerpt from Dr Claire Marshall’s keynote address delivered at the launch of the United Against Inhumanity Manifesto at the University of East London on 16 April 2026.

About the author: she is a senior lecturer and chartered counselling psychologist in the university’s School of Childhood and Social Care. Her work focuses on areas such as refugee and forced-migration mental health, psychosocial interventions, trauma, humanitarian operations, and critical psychology. She has worked as a clinician, researcher, academic, and consultant with organizations including projects linked to international humanitarian and policy initiatives.

The post “Borders, Belonging and the Psycho-Social Impact of Precarity”, by Dr Claire Marshall appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

About the Book

Un-welcome to Denmark: The Paradigm Shift and Refugee Integration, written by Michelle Pace with Sarah El-Abd. Manchester University Press, 2025

The Danish «paradigm shift»

In 2019, Denmark enacted what it officially called a «paradigm shift» in migration policy: refugees were no longer conceived as people who would integrate into Danish society, but as temporary guests expected to return to their countries of origin as soon as conditions allowed. For thousands of Syrians who had spent years building a life in Denmark, this meant the loss of their residency permits and the permanent threat of deportation.

Michelle Pace, Professor of Global Studies based in Roskilde, Denmark has spent more than a decade documenting this process. Together with Sarah El-Abd, she has produced a comprehensive analysis combining in-depth interviews with Syrian refugees, welfare professionals and private-sector employers, alongside a detailed examination of the Danish legislative framework from 1983 to the present day.

The theory of the «unwelcome migrant»

The book’s central concept is that of the unwelcome migrant — an analytical category that illuminates how the Danish state, through its laws, programmes and official narratives, actively produces and perpetuates the precarity of those seeking protection. This goes beyond restrictive policies: it is an institutional gaze that frames refugees as «undeserving» subjects, subjected to constant surveillance, permanent conditionality and an insecurity that pervades every aspect of their daily lives.

The book traces with precision how this gaze has been materialised in concrete instruments — from the Aliens Act to the IGU labour integration programme, through the political discourse that has normalised the language of exclusion. It also documents the experience of those working within the system — social workers, counsellors, private companies — who are forced to navigate its contradictions while attempting, in their own ways, to «repair» the harm it produces.

Why we recommend this book

Un-welcome to Denmark is far more than an analysis of a single national case. It is a first-rate contribution to current debates on welfare nationalism, the securitisation of migration, human rights and the limits of integration as conceived across Europe. At a time when many countries are debating the direction of their asylum and reception policies, this book offers a well-grounded warning and a clear map of the human consequences of the most exclusionary choices available.

Its strength also lies in the plurality of voices it brings together. Moving beyond abstract narratives about migration, Pace (with El-Abd) centres real people: Syrians describing the anxiety of living inside a bureaucratic maze with no clear way out; professionals trying to support them without being able to change the rules of the game; and employers seeking pragmatic ways to sustain their presence in the labour market.

It is, in short, a book that deliberately unsettles — and that compels us to ask what kind of society we want to build, and what human cost we are prepared to accept for our political choices.

The book is available from Manchester University Press (2025).

For more information about the author and her research,  see her public profile on LinkedIn

The post «Un-welcome to Denmark»: when the world’s happiest country closes its door. appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

This statement argues that a new and better approach is needed to ensure the respectful and dignified treatment of people arriving in Europe from other parts of the world. It provides a commentary on the EU Pact and Strategy on Migration and Asylum, both of which take effect on 12 June 2026. The statement also explains why European governments and institutions will be unable to implement the Pact and Strategy in a humane and equitable manner unless they take full account of the Manifesto to Stop the Inhumanity at Europe’s Borders.

AN UNACCEPTABLE APPROACH

Europe’s recent approach to migration and asylum has been unacceptable. Many thousands of people have drowned while trying to reach the region by sea, while others have been subjected to appalling levels of brutality at and within the continent’s borders.

European states are spending billions of Euros on measures intended to obstruct and deter refugees and other migrants, many of whom are escaping war and persecution, the consequences of climate change and absence of livelihood opportunities, from reaching the region. They are committing billions more to administering asylum claims and providing assistance to those who succeed in completing the journey. At the same time, funding to support refugees and people seeking asylum in their regions of origin has been dramatically reduced.

New arrivals in Europe are routinely prevented from working and supporting themselves, thereby inflating the costs incurred by states, threatening their wellbeing and placing extra pressures on local communities. As a result, public opinion has turned against foreign nationals and ethnic minorities, irrespective of their legal status. A toxic debate on migration and asylum is taking place throughout much of the continent, encouraged by populist politicians and xenophobic media outlets.

The people who benefit most from this alarming situation include criminal smuggling enterprises, corrupt government officials, exploitative landlords and employers, unscrupulous immigration advisers, extremist groups and political parties.

TURNING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE

There is another and better way to address the issue of migration and asylum in Europe. It is a way that enables people to reach the continent without having to take difficult and dangerous journeys. It is a way that enables all new arrivals to be treated with dignity and respect. And it is a way that undermines the activities of unscrupulous individuals and organizations that are exploiting the vulnerability of those who are on the move.

In order to put these principles into practice, the Campaign has published a Manifesto to Stop the Inhumanity at Europe’s Borders, which has been endorsed by 150+ civil society organizations worldwide.

The Manifesto addresses a set of recommendations to European states and institutions, focusing on five key demands:

1. Saving Lives
2. Humanizing Reception Arrangements
3. Ending Containment
4. Establishing Safe Routes
5. Enabling Justice And Redress

We urge all European states and institutions to examine the demands and recommendations set out in the Manifesto and to take them into full account in the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum and the associated Migration and Asylum Management Strategy.

THE EU PACT AND STRATEGY

The EU Strategy on Migration and Asylum states that it aims to “break the business of criminal smuggling networks, protect people fleeing war and persecution, and encourage talent to come to the EU to boost the competitiveness of our economy.”  

We endorse those broad objectives, while pointing out that the business of people smuggling has expanded in recent years largely because regular routes to Europe have been blocked by measures intended to prevent and deter people from entering the region.

We support the EU view that migration and asylum issues should be addressed with “a common approach and in a consistent manner”. At the same time, we are concerned that the strategy devised by the EU fails to provide viable options for safe travel and productive livelihoods for people fleeing persecution, armed conflict and other threats to their wellbeing.

UNEVEN IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation of the EU Pact and Strategy seems certain to be uneven, with member states varying considerably in their understanding of and commitment to these initiatives. While a small number of governments have taken the opportunity to strengthen their asylum and reception systems, many have given preference to the exclusion of refugees and asylum seekers through the establishment of outsourcing and containment deals with non-EU states.

NATIONAL PLANS

The EU and its member states have not been sufficiently rigorous in their engagement with civil society in the development of national implementation plans for the EU Pact and Strategy. There has also been insufficient transparency with respect to the content of these plans, reinforcing fears that the new regulations will be used as a vehicle for the introduction of more restrictive policies. While the EU’s stated commitment to the protection of people fleeing war and persecution is welcome, many provisions of the Pact and other recent EU initiatives related to asylum threaten to undermine that objective.

DETENTION

As a result of the Pact’s implementation, there is likely to be an increase in the number of refugees and asylum seekers, including children, being detained for long periods of time in prison-like facilities at the borders of Europe. Member states should in all cases use detention only as a last resort and seek alternatives to incarceration. The detention of children should be prohibited.

DISPERSAL

Under the provisions of the Pact, new arrivals in the EU may be obliged to remain in non-European states that currently lack the resources and infrastructure needed to offer humane and acceptable reception facilities. While there are provisions in the Pact for some arrivals to be dispersed more equitably across the EU, this arrangement will not be binding.

REMOVAL

If recent EU proposals are implemented, people seeking asylum who originate from, or who have passed through, countries that are deemed to be safe, as well as those whose asylum claims have been rejected, will be swiftly removed from member states. If their country of origin or transit refuses to readmit them, they could end up languishing indefinitely in so-called ‘return hubs’ that are likely to involve detention and to be poorly serviced, unless substantial additional resources are devoted to these facilities.

SAFE ROUTES

While the EU has made a commitment to the establishment of regular migration pathways for people wishing to enter Europe and who might otherwise embark on dangerous journeys, the number of people who will be offered access to such safe and legal routes seems likely to be extremely modest.

The EU Resettlement Framework provides a good start, but needs to be significantly more ambitious, commensurate with the EU’s size and its responsibility sharing commitments articulated through the Global Compact on Refugees. States should also explore other schemes such as those linked to education, employment and family reunion, which would significantly increase safe routes for people seeking asylum. 

MONITORING

We are concerned that the implementation of the Pact and Strategy will proceed with inadequate and unequal levels of monitoring and accountability across Europe. While the Pact provides for the establishment of an independent border monitoring mechanism, the constraints placed on its capacity may well mean that the abuses committed by states, such as pushbacks at sea and on land, continue unabated.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) have a vital role to play in the monitoring process and are encouraged to engage with national authorities, the media and public so as to ensure that their findings are acted upon. States should facilitate, rather than hinder, the work of CSOs.

To ensure maximum levels of compliance, both with the principles of the EU Pact and with the recommendations of the Manifesto, we also call on national governments and  European institutions to monitor the implementation of the Pact in each country and report findings regularly to the EU Asylum Agency, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and Frontex. Reports should also be provided to the European and national parliaments.

CONCLUSION

We support a European approach to migration and asylum that enables the region to act in a coordinated, coherent and compassionate manner. In the current political and economic environment, however, those objectives will be difficult to attain. An alternative approach is required, taking full account of the recommendations found in the Manifesto to Stop the Inhumanity at Europe’s Borders.  

At the same time, the EU and its member states, with the support of humanitarian and development actors, must take a broader view of the migration and asylum issue, addressing the sources of inhumanity in countries of origin, first asylum and transit. When people move, they should be able to do so out of choice and in safety and dignity.

The post There is a better way! appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

UAI joins the #VoteJustice4Palestine initiative launched by the Ceasefire Now coalition during Eurovision week, calling for justice, freedom, and solidarity with the Palestinian people.

As millions tune into Eurovision, Palestinian artists and cultural leaders are transforming the language of the contest itself into an act of solidarity: an alternative vote — not for a winning song, but for justice, freedom, dignity, and the right of Palestinian culture to exist and endure.

At a moment when many institutions refuse to take meaningful action, initiatives like #VoteJustice4Palestine show the power of culture, creativity, and collective participation to break silence and build international solidarity.

At the heart of the campaign is a newly re-recorded version of “The Drone Song” by Ahmed Abu Amsha and Gaza Birds Singing (music by Zaid Hilal), alongside a week of public engagement, social media actions, and cultural discussion running through the Eurovision final on 16 May. It is a powerful reminder that music and art can become tools against erasure.

Today, 12 May, a different kind of vote is proposed.
A vote grounded in conscience rather than competition.

Ahead of tonight’s Eurovision semi-final, a live cultural conversation brings together Palestinian cultural leaders to speak about Israel’s systematic destruction of Palestinian cultural heritage across the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

This conversation is about celebrating Palestinian cultural heritage and identity, despite the suffering, the destruction, the ongoing genocide and siege.

📅 Webinar: Today, 12 May
🎤 Eurovision Final: 16 May

Register here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN__7H3kDz5Q-qRYeZd92EGTg

Webinar invite/social post:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DYKnHxAiG3T/?igsh=YjNlcTYxODRzcmo2

Please share widely. Culture and identity are fundamental human rights.

The post A Different Kind of Vote appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

This piece was originally published by Swissinfo on April 27, 2026.

Afghanistan has been shaped by its rich and diverse cultural history from ancient to contemporary times. Although blessed with a wealth of untapped resources, nowadays, millions of Afghans are preoccupied with survival. Life, for many, is a daily battle against hunger, degraded or non-existent essential services such as clean water, sanitation and health care. Mounting debt and profound levels of poverty make Afghanistan one of the poorest countries in the world. This raises questions as to whether Afghan lives matter to those governments which have orchestrated unprecedented levels of destitution.

This opinion piece focuses on the policies of different stakeholders who have prioritised penalising Afghan citizens by means of economic warfare – an agenda of manufactured poverty – rather than engaging with the Taliban authorities, who take pride in their infamous rulings however repulsive to others. These edicts reinforce the Taliban’s interpretation of Afghan culture and deep-seated norms that have long discriminated against women and girls.

Poverty in Afghanistan is not a new phenomenon. It can be traced, in part, to almost five decades of armed conflict, including a post 9/11 war economy that sharpened structural inequalities. The United States-led occupation aggravated weak and corrupt governance and fuelled impunity. It also contributed to the return of the Taliban to Kabul in August 2021.

The re-emergence of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan – the official name of the Taliban administration – triggered a host of punitive measures by the US and its allies. This included the immediate cessation of economic support to Kabul that, previously, relied on Western funding for 75% of government expenditure. The US blocked $9.1 billion (CHF7.1 billion) of the country’s external, sovereign reserves in 2021. This handcuffed the central bank, or Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB), thereby suffocating the economy and banking system. As Dr. Shah Mehrabi, a respected economist noted at the time, the DAB’s lack of access to its dollar-denominated reserves would undermine its historic ability to maintain a stable exchange rate and curb inflation. Indeed, in any setting, an economy cannot function effectively in the absence of an experienced and credible central bank.

Given the dire straits faced by impoverished and destitute Afghans, the United Nations organised a system to, literally, fly in cash dollars to support humanitarian programming. This also proved a lifeline for the DAB, which could use these US dollars, once lodged locally, to undertake regular currency auctions to stabilise the value of the afghani, the local currency. This, in turn, enabled financial transactions and commercial trade.

This “fly-in cash dollars” system is now in jeopardy given the dramatic reduction in Western funding for humanitarian action that began last year and the absence of support for sustainable development since 2021. The US, which had provided “more than 40% of all aid in 2024” to Afghanistan, ended its assistance in a sudden and brutal fashion in April 2025. Coupled with drastic cuts by other donors such as Germany and the United Kingdom, Tom Fletcher, the UN’s most senior humanitarian official, notedafter a visit to the country last year that the humanitarian sector, overall, would shrink and many vulnerable people would die.

Data shows that 21.9 million Afghans, or 45% of the population, are in desperate need of humanitarian action this year. More than a third of the Afghan population of 45 million are currently experiencing devastating levels of hunger. Soaring rates of acute food insecurity means that a “staggering 3.7 million children will need malnutrition treatment”, reports the World Food Programme. The closure of more than 420 health facilities this past year has contributed to a “3 to 4 percent increase in infant mortality” and a noticeable increase in maternal deaths.

The Politics of Collective Punishment

A loud cacophony of condemnation of repressive Taliban policies by politicians, human rights actors and others have effectively made Afghanistan a pariah state while ignoring how measures that have shackled the DAB continue to strangle the economy. This policy of collective punishment ignores how poverty further marginalises the women and girls who bear the brunt of the Taliban’s disabling restrictions – restrictions that inhibit their presence outside the home including access to education, health care and employment.

Unceasing poverty has stretched traditional coping mechanisms to breaking point. Extended family networks are key in times of stress, as is migration to neighboring countries, remittances, debt and sale of essential farming and household assets. The forced return of some 5.4 million Afghans from Pakistan and Iran primarily, as well as Europe, in recent times has scuttled the flow of remittances and intensified economic hardships. A UN report last year indicated that nine in ten families, including many female-headed households that tend to be hardest hit by poverty, use harmful coping practices to survive.

In September 2022, the US transferred US$3.5 billion – half of the blocked Afghan reserves – to a newly created Fund for the Afghan People in Switzerland, ostensibly for the benefit of Afghans. It was assumed that this would help ease the economic and liquidity crisis in Afghanistan. Initially, the Afghan Fund focused on developing in-house procedures but this past year it has, apparently, gone into hibernation mode as indicated by the pace and content of its Board meetings. These days, my enquiries on this matter go unanswered, unlike in the early days of the Fund. To me, it appears to be stymied by politics rather than inertia in organising measures to recapitalise the DAB, even though this means ignoring the fact that the blocked assets are the property of the Afghan people, whose deliberate deprivation means ever greater mortality rates.

Strong-arm tactics have shaped US decision-making since its hasty retreat from Afghanistan in 2021. In addition, an array of actors including Switzerland, which claim to be strong proponents of human rights and routinely broadcast their concern about the fate of Afghan women, are also complicit in policies that are inhumane and totally at odds with the notion of justice and a shared humanity.

Whatever the politics, Afghan lives do matter. This is reflected in a variety of initiatives that call for an end to manufactured poverty and the suffering it entails. From the outset, United Against Inhumanity (where I am engaged) and other groups called for an end to the arbitrary sequestration of Afghan assets and for the re-capitalisation of the DAB. This can be done gradually, by disbursing a minimum of $150 million monthly under an internationally monitored framework. States with a history of donor funding during the post 9/11 era should also invest in sustainable capacity-building programmess for Afghans, with a focus on livelihoods, including entrepreneurship options for women.

The post “Do Afghan lives matter?”, by Norah Niland. appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

In response to Israeli authorities’ violations of international humanitarian law in Palestine and Lebanon, over 60 human rights and humanitarian organizations and trade unions call on the EU and member states to adopt long-overdue measures, including suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement, banning trade with illegal Israeli settlements and suspending all transfers and transit of arms to Israel.

Dear President von der Leyen,

Dear High Representative / Vice-President Kallas,

Dear Foreign Ministers of the EU member states,

We, the undersigned humanitarian and human rights organisations and trade unions, write to you as Israeli authorities escalate their brutal repression and illegal annexation policies in Palestine, and violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) in Palestine and Lebanon to urge you to adopt the long-overdue measures proposed by President von der Leyen in September 2025, in particular the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, along with any additional steps necessary to comply with international law, including banning trade with illegal Israeli settlements and suspending all transfers and transit of arms to Israel.

Already in June 2025, the EU had found Israel in breach of Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which identifies respect of human rights and democratic principles as “essential elements” of the treaty. Ongoing actions by Israeli authorities in Israel, throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and in Lebanon further compound that breach, and are causing immense suffering to millions throughout the region.

Last month, the Israeli Knesset passed a discriminatory death penalty law that significantly expands the scope and application of the death penalty, in effect targeting Palestinians only. The law is not only an egregious violation of the rights to life and fair trial of Palestinians, but also adds to the growing body of discriminatory legislation and policies implemented by Israeli authorities against Palestinians, which the International Court of Justice has found to violate Article 3 CERD, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid, in its Advisory Opinion of July 2024. Numerous UN bodies and experts, Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations, and renowned legal scholars, have also documented how these policies and legislation amount to the system and crime against humanity of apartheid.

In the occupied West Bank, Israel is accelerating its illegal annexation policies and practices and is intensifying repression and serious abuses against Palestinians. Since the start of the war with Iran and Lebanon, the situation has severely worsened. Since 28 February, Israeli authorities have imposed strict movement restrictions across the OPT. In addition to previously existing check-points, dozens of new road gates have been installed by Israeli authorities in the West Bank since October 2023, most of which are now closed, severely impacting Palestinians’ access to their lands, workplaces, schools, health and emergency services. Moreover, Israeli forces and state-backed settlers have increased attacks against Palestinians, with over 200 attacks in March alone, including reports of sexual abuse. According to UN OCHA this year Israeli forces and settlers have killed 34 Palestinians, including seven children and injured 771, including 97 children. Attacks are increasingly directed towards larger Palestinian villages in area B, spreading through the West Bank. Since October 2023, state-backed settler violence has led to the displacement of 38 entire Palestinian communities. Less than three months into 2026, 1700 Palestinians have been displaced, already surpassing the total for the whole of 2025. For violent settlers, impunity remains the norm: according to Israeli NGOs, only 3% of cases lead to a full or partial conviction. In contrast, for Palestinians the conviction rate in military courts is 99%. 

The increasingly lethal state-backed settler violence goes hand in hand with the acceleration of illegal settlement expansion and annexation policies through a set of measures recently adopted by Israel to displace and dispossess Palestinians in the West Bank. In August 2025, the Israeli Higher Planning Council approved the E1 plan, meant to cut through the occupied Palestinian land, with Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for atrocity crimes, saying out loud that the E1’s goal is to ensure “that there will be no Palestinian state”. In illegally annexed East Jerusalem, Israeli authorities forcibly evicted 15 Palestinian families, including 29 children, from their homes in Batn al-Hawa in Silwan last month. At least 200 other families in the neighbourhood face the risk of forced eviction to enable the unlawful takeover of their homes by settler organizations.   

Meanwhile, more than 9560 Palestinians are held in Israeli detention, half of whom are held without charges or trial, either under administrative detention or under the Unlawful Combatants’ Law. Israel currently detains 351 Palestinian children, with more than half held in administrative detention without charge or trial. UN experts, Palestinian and Israeli NGOs have documented systematic torture and inhuman and degrading treatment against Palestinian prisoners, and Israeli authorities continue to deny the ICRC access to all places of detention.

In the occupied Gaza Strip, the Israel-made humanitarian catastrophe persists. Israel remains in breach of three binding orders of the International Court of Justice in the case brought by South Africa for alleged violation of the UN Genocide Convention, including to ensure unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance, and to preserve evidence. The UN Commission of Inquiry, alongside numerous human rights organisations and legal scholars, has found that Israeli authorities have committed and are continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Since the start of a so-called ceasefire in October 2025, at least 736 Palestinians have been killed. Airstrikes, shelling and gunfire continues on both sides of the so-called “Yellow Line”, a temporary military demarcation that now risks evolving into an enduring territorial division. In the meantime, newly introduced registration requirements, which violate established humanitarian principles and data protection laws, allowed the Israeli authorities to further restrict the operational space for dozens of international humanitarian organizations.

Israeli policies throughout the OPT run counter the obligations laid out in the July 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which found Israel’s occupation to be unlawful and marred by serious abuses, including Israel’s breach of Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits racial segregation and apartheid. The Court clarified Israel should end its occupation, dismantle its settlements, allow Palestinians to return to their homes and provide them with reparations for the harm suffered. 

Several experts have warned about the possible “Gazafication” of the conflict in Lebanon, where Israeli forces have displaced over 1.2 million people, around one fifth of the country’s population, in their offensive against Hezbollah, following overly broad evacuation orders which do not constitute effective guarantees of protection. The Israeli military has targeted healthcare facilities and workers, journalists, and civilian infrastructure, including bridges, which will severely impact the ability to deliver food for the people who cannot or choose not  to leave their homes, and who should continue to be protected under IHL. Israeli authorities indicated the area would become a “buffer zone” in which all Lebanese homes in border villages will be destroyed and Israel will maintain control over the south of Lebanon up to the Litani river, as stated by Minister Katz. 

These developments come on the heels of decades of toothless EU statements of concern and calls for a “two-state solution” that have been largely ignored by Israeli authorities, to no consequences. We welcome commitments by five member states (Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, Belgium, and The Netherlands) to ban imports of goods from illegal Israeli settlements, as required by international law and the ICJ’s advisory opinion of July 2024, and commend Spain for having already banned the imports of goods and advertisements of both goods and services from illegal Israeli settlements as of September 2025. We urge the EU to do the same, in compliance with Articles 3(5) and 21(1) TEU, and in line with its longstanding, unanimous condemnation of Israeli settlement policies as illegal and an “obstacle to a two-state solution” that the EU claims to pursue.

To date, no qualified majority has been reached in the Council to suspend the trade provisions of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, despite repeated calls from member states, Members of the European Parliament, civil society and the European public. This failure to act risks rendering the Association Agreement’s human rights clause meaningless in practice, further tarnishes the EU’s credibility and emboldens the sense of impunity fueling Israel’s growing abuses. We call on member states to support the suspension of the agreement, and urge the Council to reflect on the reputational, legal and most of all human consequences of continued inaction in the face of mounting evidence of crimes under international law committed by Israel both in Palestine and Lebanon. 

The European Union and its member states should immediately suspend all transfers and transit of arms, munitions, equipment, technology, parts and dual-use goods to Israel This obligation is not discretionary but arises under both EU and international law. Article 6 and 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty and the EU Common Position on Arms Exports requires states not to transfer arms to a recipient where a clear risk exists they might be used in serious violation of IHL, as is the case for Israel. In addition, Common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions requires that States respect and ensure respect for IHL. While several member states have already suspended arms exports, we urge all remaining states to do so without delay. In addition, the EU should take coordinated action at the institutional level to prevent the transit of arms, components, and dual-use goods through its territory to Israel, including by closing existing regulatory and enforcement gaps. 

The patterns documented in this letter are the predictable consequence of decades of impunity: a failure by the international community to hold Israeli authorities accountable, and a willingness to allow political considerations to override legal obligations. What remains absent is the political will to act. The measures we urge in this letter, suspending arms transfers, banning trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and suspending the Association Agreement, are not mere political choices. They are legal obligations. The people of Palestine and Lebanon deserve action and accountability, not concerns and condolences. The time to act is long overdue.

Signatories: 

International: 

1. ACT Alliance EU
2. ActionAid International  
3. Amnesty International
4. Avaaz
5. CIDSE- International family of Catholic Social Justice Organisations
6. Caritas Europa
7. Ekō          
8. EuroMed Rights
9. Global Witness
10. Human Rights Watch
11. International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims
12. Oxfam
13. Pax Christi International
14. SOLIDAR
15. United Against Inhumanity 
16. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) 

Member state-based: 

17. 11.11.11, Belgium
18. Action des Chrétiens pour l’Abolition de la Torture, Luxembourg
19. ActionAid Denmark      
20. Adala for All, France
21. Ambasada Rog, Slovenia
22. Avocats Sans Frontières, Belgium
23. Belgian Academics and Artists for Palestine (BA4P/BACBI), Belgium
24. Broederlijk Delen, Belgium
25. Centro Pace ecologia e diritti umani, Italia
26. CGIL, Italy
27. Christian Aid Ireland
28. CISS, Cooperazione Internazionale Sud Sud, Italy
29. CNCD-11.11.11, Belgium
30. Comhlamh Justice for Palestine, Ireland
31. COPE – Cooperazione Paesi Emergenti, Italia
32. COSPE, Italy 
33. Danes je nov dan, Inštitut za druga vprašanja, Slovenia
34. Dignity- Danish Institute against Torture, Denmark 
35. Een Ander Joods Geluid, The Netherlands
36. Entraide et Fraternité, Belgium
37. European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine, Belgium
38.  European Trade Union Network for Justice in Palestine, Belgium
39. FGTB-ABVV, Belgium
40. Gaza Group GCDG, Belgium
41. Glosa, Slovenia
42. International Committee Against House Demolitions – Germany 
43. Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Ireland
44. Jews For Palestine Ireland       
45. Junts Associació Catalana de Jueus i Palestins, Spain
46. Kairos Ireland
47. Law4Palestine, UK and Sweden
48. Nederlands Palestina Komitee, The Netherlands
49. Olof Palme International Center, Sweden
50. PAX, the Netherlands
51. Peace Institute, Slovenia
52. Platform of French NGOs for Palestine, France
53. Portuguese Platform of Development NGOs, Portugal
54. Pro Peace, Germany
55. Reka Si, Slovenia 
56. Sadaka-The Ireland Palestine Alliance, Ireland
57. Slovene Philanthropy, Slovenia
58. Solsoc, Belgium
59. The Rights Forum, The Netherlands
60. Trócaire, Ireland
61. Viva Salud, Belgium
62. Women for Peace, Finland      
63. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom WILPF Finland   
64.  Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom WILPF Italy
65.  Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom WILPF Spain

The post EU/Israel: 60+ organizations demand suspension of EU-Israel Association Agreement appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

The post Upcoming event: Promoting the psychosocial wellbeing of refugees appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.

Today, raise your voice and join the action

10 April marks six months since the Gaza ceasefire agreement was announced.

But Palestinians are still being killed, displaced and denied the conditions needed to survive.

What is being called a “ceasefire” is not delivering safety, dignity or recovery. Airstrikes continue. Humanitarian access remains obstructed. Humanitarian action is routinely undermined.  Families are still living in tents, struggling to find food, clean water and medical care. In the West Bank, settlement expansion, settler violence and forced displacement are intensifying.

That is why today we are joining a coordinated public action to say clearly:

This is not a ceasefire.
A real ceasefire means protection, access, accountability and survival.

Why this matters today

Today, various humanitarian actors released a humanitarian scorecard assessing the six-month mark of the Gaza “ceasefire” as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025).

The scorecard evaluates progress against the agreement’s own stated objectives — including civilian protection, humanitarian access, reconstruction, economic development and freedom of movement — and concludes that, on almost every metric, the ceasefire is failing the people of Gaza.

This confirms what Palestinians and humanitarian organisations have been warning for months: what exists in Gaza is not a ceasefire worthy of the name, but a reality of continued violence, deprivation and obstruction.

Since the ceasefire agreement was announced:

• More than 600 Palestinians have been killed 
• Well over 1,500 have been injured 
• Hundreds of bodies have been retrieved from under the rubble 
• People continue to struggle to access safe drinking water 
• Sewage is flowing in the streets 
• Less than 42% of health service points are operational, most only partially 
• More than 18,500 patients, including 3,800 children, need specialized care unavailable in Gaza because the health system has been devastated 

Meanwhile, global attention is shifting elsewhere. This means that the ground reality confronting Palestinians is less and less visible and risks being pushed out of public view once again.

Today’s action is about refusing that erasure.

What the scorecard calls for

• measures to enforce a definitive ceasefire across the whole of Gaza 
• an independent UN-mandated mechanism to monitor, verify and report violations 
• an independent and transparent system for processing and verifying humanitarian goods at Gaza’s crossings 
• the full and consistent opening of all crossing points into Gaza 
• a predictable flow of aid, including at least 600 humanitarian aid trucks per day 
• the restoration of the medical corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem 
• the immediate restoration of freedom of movement for Palestinians into and out of Gaza, including for urgent medical evacuations 
• the lifting of new Israeli restrictions on INGO registration and the guarantee that international organisations can operate freely across Gaza and the West Bank 
• concrete action by states that endorsed the New York Declaration in support of Gaza’s recovery and reconstruction 
• recovery plans that do not deepen confinement, forced displacement or social disintegration, but instead guarantee freedom of movement and access to property 

What we are calling for

• an end to bombings and attacks on civilians 
• full protection of civilian life 
• unimpeded humanitarian access 
• real consequences for violations by all parties 
• Palestinian-led recovery, dignity and justice 

Join the action today

Today, 10 April, you can take part in the collective social media mobilisation and help amplify the reality on the ground:

• post on your own channels 
• use or adapt the campaign materials already prepared 
• create your own content in your own voice 
• share the key facts and messages with your networks 
• amplify the newly released Gaza Scorecard 2026 

Suggested messages to post today

What is being called a ceasefire in Gaza exists in name only. People are still being bombed. Aid is still being blocked. Families are still being displaced. Hospitals are barely functioning. Children are still living in fear. This is not a ceasefire. Today, 10 April, join us in demanding a real one.

This is what a “ceasefire” looks like in Gaza: airstrikes before dawn, one meal a day, families waking up in tents, lack of clean water, aid trucks turned away, children living in fear. #ThisIsNotACeasefire

Six months ago, a ceasefire agreement was announced. But the violence has not stopped. Palestinian civilians are still being killed and injured. Gaza remains devastated by destruction and displacement. A ceasefire in name only cannot rebuild homes or protect families. #ThisIsNotACeasefire

Scorecard and briefing

Today’s mobilisation is strengthened by the release of the Gaza Scorecard 2026 and the media briefing held this morning with speakers including representatives from Oxfam, Save the Children, Refugees International and humanitarian medical experts.

Thanks to all the speakers who contributed to that briefing, and especially to Refugees International, Save the Children and Crisis Action for helping facilitate it.

Hashtags and tags

#CeasefireNOW
#ThisIsNotACeasefire
#LetAidIn

Instagram: @nowceasefire

Today, be part of it

Raise your voice.
Share the facts.
Join the action.

A ceasefire that does not protect life is not a ceasefire at all.

The post This Is Not a Ceasefire! Gazans continue to die as they struggle to survive appeared first on United Against Inhumanity.