DRC Violence

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is one of the most naturally rich countries on Earth. It’s home to a vast rainforest bursting with life lush greenery, rare plants, and countless species of wildlife. Beneath this beauty, the land is filled with valuable minerals like coltan, tin, copper, and diamonds. Farming also plays a huge role in the country’s economy, thanks to its fertile soil, but despite all this natural wealth, the DRC has been struggling with a darker reality decade of extreme violence that have left deep scars on its people and communities. In this post, we’ll take a closer look at the types of violence happening in the DRC, where it comes from, and how history continues to shape the country’s conflicts today.

Fishermen in traditional boat on Lake Kivu
Caption: Fishermen in the DRC. Photo by Edouard MIHIGO : https://www.pexels.com/photo/fishermen-in-traditional-boat-on-lake-kivu-30164275/

Violence in the DRC is far from new, as it has been part of the country’s story for decades. The most devastating period began in 1998 and has been incredibly deadly, resulting in the deaths of around four million people, mostly civilians. Much of this violence has been carried out not only by official soldiers from the national army, known as the FARDC, but also by militias that often recruit child soldiers. Survivors of these violent acts have since shared their stories with the world through the media in hopes that someone will listen and act. In one shocking case, a militia kidnapped hundreds of people and tortured and killed victims, even beheading some. At a local hospital, women and children were treated by Doctors Without Borders. Reports from Representative Amos Namanga Ngongi and long-time missionary Silvano Ruaro describe acts of cannibalism and the use of human bones as charms. These are details that reveal just how brutal the violence has become.
Acts such as rape, kidnapping, torture, and murder are often used as weapons of war. The physical wounds are devastating, but the psychological and social consequences are just as severe. Survivors face trauma, the spread of HIV and other STIs, and unwanted pregnancies.

In countries like the United States, violence often takes the form of isolated events like drive-by shootings or mass shootings that make national headlines. The violence in the DRC, however, is on a completely different scale. It’s systematic, organized, and tied to ongoing wars and power struggles. Medical care is also far more limited in the DRC. Hospitals constantly treat patients with war-related injuries, many of whom also carry deep emotional trauma. These factors create a cycle of pain that’s incredibly difficult to break. So, why is there so much violence in the DRC? To answer that, we need to look back at the country’s history and ethnic makeup. The DRC has incredible ethnic diversity, though the four largest groups make up nearly half the population. These groups existed long before European colonization, but colonization changed everything.

The DRC was first claimed by Portugal and later brutally colonized by Belgium under King Leopold II in the late 1800s. Leopold’s rule was infamous for forced labor, exploitation, and mass killings, leading to the deaths of an estimated 10 million Congolese people.
When Belgium finally left in the 1960s, the country was free but not stable. Power struggles quickly erupted. The province of Katanga, which was rich in minerals, tried to break away from the rest of the country. Supported by the Belgian government, Katanga’s attempted secession caused even more tension between ethnic groups. Youth militias became a common sight, and they catalyzed violence across the country.

Another flashpoint was Kivu Province, home to a large number of Banyarwanda (people of Rwandan descent). A 1972 law granted them citizenship, but later laws took it away by requiring proof of ancestry dating back to the 1885 Berlin Conference, when colonial powers divided Africa. For many families, this was impossible to prove, and it led to more discrimination and violence between groups.

Clearly, the violence we see in the DRC today didn’t appear out of nowhere. It’s the result of centuries of exploitation, colonial manipulation, and ethnic division. European powers drew artificial borders that lumped together communities with different languages, cultures, and political systems. Even after independence, these divisions continued to fuel distrust and competition for resources and power.

Man holding DRC flag
Caption: The flag of the DRC. Photo by Safari Consoler: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-hand-holding-the-flag-of-the-democratic-republic-of-the-congo-12371836/

Today’s wars, systematic sexual violence, and mutilations are the tragic outcomes of that long and painful history. According to the United Nations, violence over the last year has done everything but slow down. The conflict has already claimed roughly 3,000 lives and resulted in a severe humanitarian disaster. Years of reports have documented widespread human-rights abuses, and, more recently, an increase in sexual violence. M23 fighters have engaged in a pattern of atrocities, including executions without trial and forced conscription. These actions have harmed thousands of civilians that were accused of resisting the group. The report further notes that many victims endured repeated sexual assaults over extended stretches of time. To add to this, there was also a vast number of other instances of physical abuse and many instances of psychological abuse. Investigators concluded that these acts were intentionally used to humiliate, punish, and strip victims of their dignity.

These unfortunate realities are a direct violation of many of the articles of the UDHR. Article 3 states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. Clearly, in the DRC, the right to life has been stripped from much of the population, as innocent people were murdered by soldiers during conflict. Article 5, which says that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, is not upheld by soldiers in the DRC, as they have not only murdered but have brutally murdered and mutilated their opposers. While the world is slowly paying more attention thanks to survivors, journalists, and activists sharing their stories, the road to peace remains uncertain.

The DRC holds incredible natural beauty and rich resources; however, there also exists the reality of levels of human suffering that is unimaginable to many. Its forests and minerals could make it one of the richest nations in the world, but decades of war and exploitation have left it struggling to recover. Understanding the roots of Congo’s violence isn’t just about studying history, bur recognizing how colonialism, inequality, and global demand for resources continuously shape the lives of millions. The more we listen to those living through it, the better chance we have to support lasting peace and human rights in the DRC.

America’s Exit from the Convention on Climate Change

On January 7th, 2026, a Presidential Memorandum from the White House called for the United States of America’s withdrawal from a number of international organizations, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The convention’s mission since its adoption in 1992 has concentrated on the prevention of “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the Earth’s climate system– changes in the climate due to human activity. It provides a way for low-income countries to finance and shape emerging states’ climate mitigation efforts, outlines frameworks for nations to report their climate efforts and emissions, and creates opportunities for a multilateral approach to climate mitigation and adaptation. Though the UNFCCC, like any international agreement, has its flaws, it boasted near-universal membership, with 197 states in compliance. The withdrawal of the United States is unprecedented in this regard, as it will become the only United Nations member state not engaged in the convention. This blog will examine the possible reasons for America’s withdrawal as well as its possible consequences for human rights, both domestically and internationally. 

An alley of each UN Member's flag in front of the United Nations office in New York.
UN Members’ Flags Photo by Mathias Reding from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/flag-of-different-countries-un-members-4468974/

EXPLANATIONS FOR WITHDRAWAL

In the Presidential Memorandum demanding America’s removal from the UNFCCC, the White House described the convention, along with other international organizations mentioned, as “Contrary to the Interests of the United States”. Additionally, a press statement regarding the memorandum further labelled these organizations as “wasteful, ineffective, and harmful”. There are several possible reasons behind the current administration’s negative view of the climate convention.

According to a fact sheet released by the White House, departure from the UNFCCC will ensure that American taxpayer money will be funneled into domestic interests rather than in international efforts. The UNFCCC is upfront in its demand for industrialized countries to fund its efforts to strengthen climate change action in low-income countries. As the top funder, the United States’ financial contributions have made up around 22% of the convention’s budget. The White House’s fact sheet also outlined the threat to state sovereignty the UNFCCC poses, claiming that its functions “undermine America’s independence.” Specific and binding international laws require an inevitable trade-off, as high legalization comes with “costs to sovereignty.” Such specificity is characteristic of agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Climate Agreement, both of which are outgrowths of the UNFCCC. These treaties set specific obligations, goals, and limits regarding adaptation and mitigation efforts, global temperature rise, and emissions. As is evident from the White House’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, stringent international law has been interpreted by the White House as straitjacketing America’s autonomy and its abilities to act in its own interests.

A laptop browser shows the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change website.
A laptop browser shows the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change website.
Tada Images – stock.adobe.com #689529031

CLIMATE CHANGE AS A HUMAN RIGHTS TOPIC

Why is it important for climate change to be addressed internationally in the first place? At first glance, the climate crisis may appear to be purely an environmental problem. Yet the reality is that humans rely on their natural surroundings. From shelter to food to health, humanity’s dependence on the environment positions the climate crisis as “one of the most pervasive threats to human rights today,” as it endangers human rights such as life, security, and freedom. Health impacts range from disease and injury to malnutrition, due to air pollution, increased natural disasters, and food shortages. Housing, part of the human right to an adequate standard of living, will become further strained due to an inevitable increase in climate refugees. Water scarcity and salinization of freshwater threaten the human right to clean drinking water. Additionally, those most at risk of suffering at the hands of anthropogenic climate change will be communities already made vulnerable by exploitation and discrimination, both globally and domestically. The adverse human impacts of the climate crises are sweeping and urgent, making climate adaptation and mitigation essential to national security, public health, and human rights efforts.

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES

So, how does the United States’ withdrawal from the UNFCCC impact human rights and progress towards climate adaptation and mitigation?

Because of the global effects of anthropogenic climate change, it is essential that international coalitions exist not only to provide funding for low-income countries’ climate efforts but also to set standard goals and encourage accountability. Climate mitigation has been established as a global public good, with benefits extending “to all countries, people and generations,” as the effects are experienced by all but the problem cannot be solved by anyone alone. This makes multilateral conventions and agreements essential in tackling climate efforts, especially when considering the financial needs of lower-income countries and their critical input in decision-making.

The strength of multilateral conventions like the UNFCCC relies heavily on the level of legalization within the treaties; the more legally binding, the more responsibility states feel to adhere to the agreements. However, high legalization depends greatly on “if the most powerful state(s) is in favour of it,” pointing to a need for large global powers to come to a consensus in order for climate goals to be reached. The United States, a global power and a major financial contributor to the UNFCCC, has seemingly crippled the legitimacy of the climate convention by withdrawing from its consensus. This will likely threaten the legal credibility of the UNFCCC, possibly leading to a “gridlock in negotiations” on climate action.

In addition, evidence suggests that costs of unilateral exits can be “diffuse and long-term,” meaning that short-term advantages to withdrawal may be surpassed over time by the sustained costs. This is especially true of withdrawal from climate agreements, as can be seen in the book A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change, which highlights stakeholders’ struggle to properly address climate change due to its generationally delayed and geographically asymmetrical effects. According to the book, a failure to participate in climate actions also allows higher-income countries such as America, the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, to cast off responsibility for unsustainable behaviors that will ultimately affect lower-income areas of the globe more intensely.

The consequences of withdrawal from the UNFCCC are not only global, but domestic, as well. Scaling back on climate mitigation and adaptation is expected to “impede the rate of economic growth” within the United States through this century. As many other high-income countries continue developing cheaper renewable energy sources that are more efficient than fossil fuels, America is projected to see less affordable energy, transportation, food, and insurance by continued reliance on nonrenewable energy. Add this to environmental strains, food shortages, infrastructure weakness, and health threats, and it appears that the long-term economic and human rights costs of withdrawing from mitigation and adaptation are grave.

Furthermore, research on the effects of treaty withdrawal suggests that unilateral exits damage relationships between states, possibly undermining cooperation in other political or economic agreements. A state’s exit can be viewed by treaty participants as an indication that other normative commitments may be abandoned. The withdrawal from the UNFCCC, among other international agreements, may signal a renunciation of obligations and demonstrate “disdain for both the process and participants” of multilateral agreements.

A sign with President Donald Trump crossed out with the word "Klimaleugner" across his face (meaning "Climate Denier").
“Climate Denier” Sign of President Trump
Photo by Markus Spiske from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/banner-demonstration-politics-protest-2990646/

LOOKING FORWARD

The chance for rejoining the UNFCCC is a contested possibility. However, there is legal uncertainty regarding whether the convention would need to be ratified again or if it could be joined just with a signature from a future President. The legality of the withdrawal is even being contested, with debate over its validity without Senate approval.

In any case, the United States has made its move away from multilateral climate mitigation and adaptation, creating tension within the international community at large. Other global efforts towards lowering emissions, developing clean energy, and adapting to climate change will continue on without current support from America. The absence of financial and normative support from the US could result in long-term losses in speed and efficiency of global climate action. Only time will reveal the human rights consequences of the United States’ withdrawal from the UNFCCC’s obligations and limitations, both for itself and the world.

What is the Universal Periodic Review?

Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review Working Group hold its29th session to review the human rights records in 14 States.
Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review Working Group. Geneva, Switzerland, 01/23/2018 12:08:50. UN Photo/ Violaine Martin. UN7105279

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is the mechanism from the United Nations (UN) that provides universal, state-to-state evaluation of human rights practices and conditions throughout all member states. Established in 2006 by the UN’s Human Rights Council, this mechanism was design to regularly review every country, regardless of size, power, or political alignment (OHCHR, n.d.-a). To ensure transparency, core documents are public, there is a webcast of interactive dialogue, and the process formally integrates civil society organizations. This uniquely positions the UPR as a broadly accessible model for participatory design and implementation.

The UPR operates on a four-and-a-half-year cycle where each state is reviewed to produce an outcome report for recommendations (OHCHR, n.d.-c). It’s important for advocates, practitioners, and students to understand this process to meaningfully engage with local and international human rights. This is made apparent through recent developments, such as the United States’ refusal to participate in the 2025 review. When such a process is predicated on universal engagement, it can be severely disrupted by political decisions that exploit the system’s vulnerabilities (Paccamiccio & McKernan, 2025). The aim of this blog is to demystify the UPR through a detailed review of its structure, purpose, and practical relevance. This is an attempt to provide students and practitioners with a tool for advocacy and accountability.

What is the UPR actually?

Put simply, the UPR is a structured peer review of the status of human rights in each country. It’s designed to put the UN’s 193 member states on even ground. This process considers contributions from governments, civil society organizations, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR, n.d.-a). Its consideration of official state narratives as well as independent assessments provides a clear and well-rounded understanding of lived experiences.

Several key observations come from the review process. States receive a list of recommendations regarding their human rights practices, issue voluntary pledges for next steps, and adopt an outcome report that summarizes their commitments and areas for improvement (OHCHR, n.d.-c). Each of these outputs feed into the ongoing evaluation of states’ human rights records and the creation of national action plans. A crucial aspect to the legitimacy of this mechanism is buy-in and participation. The 2025 refusal of the U.S. to participate in the UPR shows how quickly the system’s universal nature can be undermined by powerful and influential states’ opting out (Paccamiccio & McKernan, 2025). Since the UPR relies on states to submit reports, engage in dialogue, and formally respond to recommendations, refusing to participate obscures the process needed to assess human rights conditions and or monitor ongoing commitments. This shows why consistent engagement is necessary for the UPR to function as intended. Each state must submit itself to the same level of scrutiny to ensure a normatively fair process.

A view of the Human Rights Council’s panel discussion on the contribution of parliaments to the Council’s work the and its Universal Periodic Review.
A view of the Human Rights Council’s panel discussion on the contribution of parliaments to the Council’s work the and its Universal Periodic Review. Geneva, Switzerland. 05/29/2013 00:00:00. UN Photo/Jean Marc Ferré. UN7299032.

THE UPR Cycle

This year [January 19 – 30th] will see the 51st Working Group meeting of the UN UPR (OHCHR, 2026). This is major component in the UPR’s structured cycle. Getting this process started relies, primarily, on three pre-session documents (OHCHR, n.d.-a).

  1. The National Report

Each state submits a report that outlines any recent developments or steps taken to implement previous recommendations. This allows states to provide a context-specific narrative of their human rights framework and the reform that they feel is significant.

  1. The UN Compilation

The OHCHR draws on UN agencies, treaty bodies, and Special Rapporteurs to create an independent, evidence-based assessment of each state’s human rights situation.

  1. The Stakeholders Report

Academics, national human rights institutions, and civil society organizations feed into a stakeholder report that reflects grassroots perspectives and lived experiences.

These documents guide the three-hour interactive dialogue session, where member states openly question the country undergoing review. This is a fast-paced meeting led by a three-member troika, who allow states to offer observations and raise concerns.

(In this case, a troika is a group of three state representatives who are appointed to facilitate the review of other countries. These three states are randomly selected by a drawing from the Human Rights Council to ensure a balanced and impartial selection. They guide the dialogue, coordinate questions, and draft the outcome report at the end.)

This is where the political dynamics of the UPR become most visible, because the tone is shaped by peer pressure, as states line up to speak in one-minute intervals. After the time for dialogue has ended, reviewing states issue their human rights recommendations, which are either accepted or noted by the state being reviewed. Acceptance shows a commitment to act in accordance with the recommendation, while noting demonstrates an unwillingness to implement and/or a general disagreement with the finding. Both responses are recorded in the final report. These responses indicate the future of each state’s national action plan on human rights and donor priorities, as well as how civil society actors will be influenced to monitor ongoing progress.

Following this session, the cycle continues through follow-up discourse involving mid-term reporting and ongoing implementation efforts. This is typically the most challenging stage, as domestic constraints, political will, and resource variability determine whether commitments translate into real change.

Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, waits behind the General Assembly Hall to address the general debate of the General Assembly’s eightieth session
President of United States of America Addresses 80th Session of General Assembly Debate. New York, United States of America. 09/23/2025 09:54:03. UN Photo/Manuel Elías. UN71118204.

2025 U.S. Non-Participation: A Unique Case Study

For the first time, this UPR cycle was completely disrupted by a member state’s refusal to participate. This left the Working Group without the ability to conduct a full review, issue tailored recommendations, or secure commitments, weakening the credibility of the process. With no national report submitted, no delegation appearing for dialogue, and no response to recommendations, civil society organizations were forced to step in to fill the gap to the best of their ability (Paccamiccio & McKernan, 2025). These organizations submitted stakeholder reports and held events in Geneva to maintain some level of scrutiny and oversight. Without these efforts, significant human rights issues could go entirely without formal examination. This demonstrates how fragile the system is when major states ‘opt out’ and upset the need for “100% participation” (OHCHR, n.d.-b; OHCHR, 2024).

How Civil Society Uses the UPR

As seen through the 2025 U.S. example, civil society is a major player in the UPR. This process is designed to explicitly incorporate shadow reporting from civil society groups as a driving force. This allows NGOs, national human rights institutions, and academic researchers to submit independent assessments of a country’s human rights record (OHCHR, n.d.-a). Stakeholder submissions give the UN’s UPR Working Group a better understanding of on-the-ground realities, sometimes through revealing issues that states left out in their national reports. Shadow reports also serve as a strategic tool where groups can reframe local concerns through international norms to gain global recognition.

Civil society also plays a crucial role in lobbying for specific, targeted recommendations. For those interested in learning how this process works, The International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) put together a detailed explanation video that covers all the UPR basics – including how civil society can get involved beyond written submissions (ISHR, 2022). It details the various stages of the process where NGOs and other actors advocate to shape the interactive dialogue’s agenda and ensure that select, community-specific issues are included in the final list of recommendations.

After the recommendations are issued, NGOs track the government’s follow-through on accepted recommendations and publish mid-term assessments. This monitoring is an essential function of the UPR, because there is no true enforcement mechanism. The process relies entirely on political pressure and public visibility to hold states accountable. This also became clear through the 2025 U.S. example, as U.S. organizations stepped up to submit stakeholder reports, brief diplomats, and hold public events in Geneva – despite state non-participation (Paccamiccio & McKernan, 2025). These efforts confirmed that the UPR is only as strong as the individuals who utilize it to sustain scrutiny through strategic framing and persistent engagement.

A wide view of the Human Rights Council at its 19th regular session. During the day’s meetings Members considered the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) reports of Ireland, Swaziland, Syria and Thailand, among others, as part of the Council's process to periodically review the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States.
Rights Council 19th Session Proceeds, UPR Reports Reviewed, Geneva, Switzerland. 03/15/2012 00:00:00. UN Photo/Jean Marc Ferré. UN7361108.

Strengths

  1. Impartiality: The UPR’s design makes it unique among international human rights systems. Its implementation establishes a standard of equality that many other mechanisms lack. Since every UN Member state undergoes the same review on the same cycle, it maintains a high degree of fairness (OHCHR, n.d.-a).
  2. Transparency: The process’s structure also reinforces transparency, as all core documents and conversations are open to the public.
  3. Leverage: The UPR is a perfect tool to generate political pressure. Its public nature of review allows for visible peer scrutiny to motivate state actors in reform-making that might otherwise go unaddressed.

Limitations

  1. Not Legally Binding: The recommendations generated from this process are ultimately left to governmental discretion (OHCHR, n.d.-c). The absence of an enforcement tool to compel engagement leads to uneven follow-up with mid-term reports or a refusal to participate, as seen through the 2025 U.S. example.
  2. Political Politeness: The public nature of the interactive dialogue often leads states to avoid direct criticism, causing geopolitical allies to soften the tone of questioning (Carraro, 2017).

Conclusion

The Universal Periodic Review remains one of the most accessible tools needed to advance human rights and provide a participatory review process at the international level. Its scope and procedures ensure an equal distribution of terms and reinforce that human rights obligations apply to everyone (OHCHR, n.d.-a). Despite moments of political disengagement, the mechanism’s value is further reinforced through the actors who use it. Students, advocates, and practitioners can all use the UPR as a natural entry point into global human rights work. With public documentation, easy-to-follow sessions, and clearly understandable processes, engaging with the UPR through research, shadow reporting, and advocacy is a powerful way to shape human rights outcomes and contribute to accountability worldwide.

When Democracy Became a Target: The Unión Patriótica and Colombia’s Crossroads

When you live abroad, the only real way to stay connected to your country– other than talking to your family– is by watching the news. I was casually browsing a news site when two headlines caught my eye: the 40th anniversary of the Palace of Justice Siege (Toma del Palacio de Justicia) and the fact that several political parties had started selecting candidates for the 2026 elections. 

Seeing those headlines together felt like a collision between two Colombias: one still haunted by the unresolved traumas of the past, and another trying to imagine a different political future. Living abroad often creates this strange distance where you follow the news closely, but you also end up seeing your country through the eyes of outsiders who may not understand how deeply history continues to shape our present.

For many people, the Palace of Justice Siege is just an old tragedy. But for Colombians, it forms part of a much larger narrative about peace, state power, and the risks of political participation. Its aftermath ignited a series of events that unfolded like a domino effect, shaping one of the most complex and painful chapters in Colombian history. Recognizing how these threads are connected is ultimately what pushed me to tell this story. 

I want you, the reader, to understand it and reflect on how similar struggles might exist in your own country.

The Birth of a Political Experiment: UP as a Path to Peace

The Unión Patriótica (UP) emerged in 1985 as a product of the peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC EP). Far from being simply “the FARC’s party,” as some critics insist, the UP represented a bold political experiment, an attempt to break away from the rigid two-party system that had dominated Colombia for decades and to show that political transformation could be pursued through democratic, nonviolent means. 

Once officially established, the UP gained remarkable electoral traction and visibility. They won mayoral races in key regions, secured seats in Congress, and built strong organizations. Their agenda (centered on agrarian reform, reducing inequality, expanding social participation, and negotiating peace) resonated deeply with many Colombians who were tired of the traditional political class. For a brief moment, it seemed like real, peaceful change was within reach. 

But that visibility quickly became a death sentence.

Photo of the Palace of Justice in Bogotá Colombia
Photo 1: Palace of Justice in Bogotá, Colombia. Source: Bernard Gagnon, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palacio_de_Justicia_de_Colombia,_Bogot%C3%A1.jpg, via Wikimedia Commons

A Politicide in Slow Motion

Later that same year, another insurgent group, the Movimiento 19 de Abril (M-19), stormed the Palace of Justice—an event that would later become known as the Palace of Justice Siege—in an attempt to force President Belisario Betancur to stand trial for allegedly violating the ceasefire and peace accords established in 1984.

The impact of this event went far beyond the immediate tragedy. It reinforced Cold War-era narratives within state institutions and conservative sectors that leftist movements, whether armed or democratic, were to be treated as existential threats. This message was clear and deadly.

By early 1986, UP leaders began receiving death threats. Murders soon followed. No one was safe: activists, supporters, voters, and even people merely rumored to sympathize with the party were relentlessly targeted by paramilitary forces. As the campaign of terror escalated, forced disappearances, mass displacement, and exile became routine across entire regions. Violence was not limited to bullets or bombs, as UP members faced financial exclusion, were denied loans, and saw their children ostracized in schools or pushed out of educational opportunities. Families were forced to flee their homes as neighbors feared retaliation simply for living near them. The goal was not just to intimidate, it was to erase the UP from every corner of public life. 

As if this were not devastating enough, the assassinations of UP members Jaime Pardo Leal, Bernardo Jaramillo Ossa, and especially Manuel Cepeda Vargas signaled the complete destruction of the party’s future. The murder of Cepeda Vargas carries particular weight today. His son, Iván Cepeda –who built his career defending victims, uncovering state crimes and demanding truth– is now a presidential candidate. The younger Cepeda’s public life is both a continuation of his father’s struggle and a reminder of what was violently taken from an entire political generation. 

The violence against the UP was not random. Paramilitary groups, drug trafficking networks, and members of the security forces all played a role. 

It wasn’t only civil society that recognized what had happened. On January 30, 2023, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a landmark ruling in the case Integrantes y Militantes de la Unión Patriótica vs. Colombia, declaring that the Colombian State bore international responsibility for a systematic plan to exterminate UP members. Then came a symbolic act of historic repair: in November 2025, President Gustavo Petro publicly apologized on behalf of the Colombian state in Santa Marta, acknowledging responsibility for the politicide against the UP.

This apology, which was part of the reparations ordered by the Court, is more than a gesture; it is a formal recognition that the state not only failed to prevent violence, but was complicit in it.

Protesters during the act of genocide recognition against the Patriotic Union in November 2025.
Photo 2: Protesters during the act of genocide recognition against the Patriotic Union in November 2025. Source: Republic of Colombia Official Photo, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/197399771@N06/54913757714/in/album-72177720330211152/, via Flickr

Why Is the Echo So Loud?

You might think: this happened decades ago. Why keep talking about it?

The answer is simple: Colombia has repeatedly attempted peace processes without fully confronting the ghost of its past. For years, the genocide against the Unión Patriótica (UP) was denied, minimized, or dismissed as a consequence of the FARC’s actions rather than what it truly was: a state-backed campaign of political extermination. Many survivors ended up in exile, others continued their activism under constant threat, and countless families never received full truth or justice. 

When the 2016 peace accords were signed with the FARC, one of the central commitments was the guarantee of safe political participation. That clause exists because of the UP. It emerged from an undeniable political lesson: if the state cannot protect demobilized groups or alternative political movements, then peace is not truly peace– it’s a fragile pause destined to break.

And yet, history continues to repeat itself. More than 1,500 social leaders have been killed between 2016 and 2025; former FARC combatants have been assassinated despite being part of the reintegration process; and new armed groups keep emerging in regions abandoned by the state. 

This is why the UP is not just a memory. It is a warning, one that Colombia still struggles to fully hear.

A New Path for Colombia’s Politics?

This history becomes even more relevant today. As mentioned earlier, Iván Cepeda has launched his presidential campaign, and –just like his father decades ago– he has been met with predictable criticism. Many opponents label him a “guerrillero”, meaning “a member from an insurgent group,” a tactic that is not only misleading but dangerous. Branding political rivals as “illegal” or “subversive” has long been a prelude to violence.

In interviews, Cepeda has emphasized that the country must decide whether it wants a political culture built on demonization and elimination, or one grounded in pluralism and debate. Regardless of whether one supports him or not, his candidacy forces Colombia to confront unresolved wounds and ask questions that have gone unanswered for too long. 

This does not mean Cepeda is “the new UP,” that his platform completely mirrors theirs, or that he is the candidate people should endorse. But symbolically, his presence in the presidential race is powerful. It reopens discussions about security guarantees, memory, and what it means to build democracy that does not punish difference. 

Colombians are compelled to ask: Has the country changed enough to make political participation truly safe? or are we still living with the same fears the UP faced?

Could this moment be a spark for change? A chance to show ourselves, and the world, that conflict can be confronted with democracy rather than violence?

Life size cutouts of victims in the UP genocide.
Photo 3: Life size cutouts of victims in the UP politicide. Source: Republic of Colombia Official Photo , CC BY-SA 4.0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/197399771@N06/54913282658/in/album-72177720330211152, via Flickr

Toward a New Horizon

Despite the weight of this past, Colombia stands at a crossroads filled with possibility. The recognition of the UP politicide by state institutions, the voices of victims who refuse to be silenced, and the growing demand for truth and reform all point to a society that is learning to confront its history rather than bury it. 

Reconciliation is not only a matter of institutions, it is also a matter of people. Stories like that of Victor Gómez, a former combatant now rebuilding his life through Colombia’s reintegration process, remind us that peace is lived through individual transformations just as much as national reforms. His unexpected leap into acting –playing a police officer in the Netflix’s series Cien años de soledad– symbolizes how identities once shaped by conflict can be rewritten. He represents a quieter side of peacebuilding: the slow work of unlearning fear, supporting a family, and seeing oneself as a contributor to society. His new path does not erase the violence that shaped him, but it shows what can grow when a country chooses reintegration over revenge.

It also embodies the core promise that the Unión Patriótica never had the chance to test: that Colombia can offer pathways back into civic life without violence. 

Why People Outside Colombia Should Care

This is not just a Colombian tragedy. It reflects global struggles over democracy, political participation, and the danger of silencing your opponents. Around the world, movements that challenge power structures have faced repression, from the systematic targeting of activists during Guatemala’s civil war to the assassination of Indigenous leaders in Brazil. Even beyond Latin America, attacks against journalists and opposition parties in places like Turkey or the Philippines seem to be the new normal; these patterns show how fragile democratic spaces can be when fear, polarization, and militarized responses guide political life. 

Colombia’s experience offers a universal lesson: peace is not just the absence of war, it is the daily assurance that difference and debate are protected. 

Understanding this history matters far beyond Colombian borders, because the conditions that enabled the UP politicide are not unique to one country; they form part of a global conversation about how societies confront violence, authoritarianism, and the long road toward reconciliation.

Banner stating "Never again another genocide in Colombia or in the world".
Photo 4: Banner stating “Never again another genocide in Colombia or in the world”. Source: CC BY-SA 4.0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/197399771@N06/54913516000/in/album-72177720330211152/, via Flickr

Conclusion

Colombia’s story is often told through the lens of conflict, but this moment invites a different narrative—one rooted in the possibility of rebuilding trust. The genocide of the Unión Patriótica was designed to eliminate an entire political horizon, yet its memory continues to shape debates about participation, security guarantees, and what true democracy demands. The fact that the country now openly recognizes the extermination of the UP, investigates what happened, and elevates voices like that of Iván Cepeda—whose life is intertwined with that history—is itself a sign of change.

Reconciliation is slow, uneven, and fragile, but it is not abstract. It lives in people like Víctor Gómez, in families who continue to seek truth, in communities that refuse silence, and in institutions finally willing to confront the uncomfortable past. Each of these threads forms part of a broader effort to ensure that Colombia never again confuses political difference with an enemy to destroy.

If Colombia can embrace pluralism, even amid polarization, it will not only honor the memory of the UP, but it will also redefine what peace means for future generations. And perhaps that is the most hopeful lesson: that the very movement once erased from the democratic map now pushes the country to imagine a political future where no one must fear for choosing the ballot over the bullet.

Bo-Kaap, a History of Resistance and Identity

Sitting at Aisha’s Kitchen on a Friday afternoon in Bo-Kaap, Cape Town, South Africa, I had the pleasure to talk to a local community organizer. Being Cape Malay himself, he shared his experiences growing in the community and the challenges they had faced. With the call to prayer in the background, he shared about the lack of engagement from the community and personal struggles people were going through. However, he was cut short by a handful of young girls from the community joining us. They asked him how he was and he asked about their families while introducing me – “Say Salaam to your aunty.” With a short introduction, we chatted with the girls, no older than 11, about their days, favorite chocolates, and their love for Bo-Kaap.

While staying in Bantry Bay, it was a journey to get all the way to Bo-Kaap. Though they are both within the same city radius of Cape Town, Bo-Kaap represents a small neighborhood. My initial understanding was that it was a simple tourist destination, but through each mural, each step, and each conversation, I recognized that the community is a living archive of struggle and resilience. The vibrancy of Bo-Kaap today represents the lengthy history of marginalized communities fighting for rights and dignity, especially in the face of colonialism, slavery, apartheid, and gentrification.

Photo 1: Inside a local mosque in Bo-Kaap.Credit: Wajiha Mekki
Photo 1: Inside a local mosque in Bo-Kaap.
Credit: Wajiha Mekki

Origins of Bo-Kaap

Bo-Kaap was founded in the 1760s, when Jan de Waal bought a set of land to be leased out to his slaves. These individuals were from a variety of locations: Malaysia, Indonesia, India, and elsewhere. Enslaved individuals slowly populated the area. This was brought to fruition by the Dutch’s involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. Originally, Bo-Kaap was divided into four areas: the Malay Quarter, Stadzicht, Schotsche Kloof and Schoone Kloof. During this time, residential development was limited. However, once Cape Town came under the occupation of the British in 1795, the residential development accelerated, creating modest housing. This growth corresponded with the desires of the British, who wanted to develop Cape Town to increase their profit margins.

Over time, Bo-Kaap became a place of refuge for others beyond Cape Malay individuals; Filipinos, Africans, Italians, and others moved to Bo-Kaap voluntarily and found a home there due to proximity to their work spaces. 

Understanding Bo-Kaap means understanding Cape Town and its history. Cape Town under Apartheid was met with many challenges. In 1948, South Africa divided the city into ethnically separate areas; the dynamic nature of Cape Town was quickly disrupted. Banishing communities from the coastline to new settlements was just one of the steps taken to enforce such policies. Another step was the Group Areas Act of 1950, which officially banned neighborhoods from being multiracial and segregated races from each other. This Act categorized Cape Town as a “whites-only” area of the country, which impacted diverse neighborhoods in the city, but the attempt to truly claim the city for whites alone was quickly fought off by the Bo-Kaap community, a small but mighty neighborhood. These anti-segregation efforts included local mosques, who protected the right of Malay South Africans to live in Bo-Kaap. As a result of this fight, the area was then declared as Cape Malay only, allowing hundreds of families to continue living in Bo-Kaap. Many people who were living in adjacent neighborhoods that were stripped of their multiracial character, such as District Six, were also moved to Bo-Kaap.

With the tragic history of Apartheid, it is critical to note its infringement of fundamental rights to movement, housing, family integrity, and equality. The history of Bo-Kaap and its survival demonstrates the role of collective action in protecting communities and their rights.

Bo-Kaap as a Center of Cultural and Religious Freedom 

In addition to the political history of Bo-Kaap, there is a rich cultural one, too. The beauty of Bo-Kaap is that it provided many Cape Malays the security to practice their religion because of the area’s unique location being far enough from Dutch settlements whilst still being close to the city center. Despite trials and tribulations, enslaved individuals maintained their faith and a sense of community.

One way that individuals in Bo-Kaap developed an opportunity to continue their community is through Afrikaans. This language, which is a mix of Portuguese, Malay, and Dutch that started in the general Cape Colony, was born of necessity. Especially considering that many enslaved individuals were from a variety of locations, it was critical for them to be able to communicate with one another, and Afrikaans gave them an opportunity to do so. The creolization of Dutch evolved as a hybrid language that allowed all groups of the Dutch colony to connect with one another. While religion played a large role in the early written text of Afrikaans being written in Arabic, the spoken language became a lingua franca for the multi-ethnic community of Bo-Kaap and South Africa more generally.

The integration of Islam as the backbone of the Bo-Kaap community was seen through Auwal Mosque, which was created in 1794. Slowly, more Muslims moved into Bo-Kaap, and this movement was accelerated with emancipation of all slaves in 1834. With the abolition of slavery, a new chapter was bright for the community. Auwal Mosque was not the only mosque anymore, as there was now more than one mosque on every street, and madrassas were developed to better teach Islam and integrate the philosophies of the religion in the community. 

Photo 2: A corner market named Tawakal which translates to trust in Arabic.Credit: Wajiha Mekki
Photo 2: A corner market named Tawakal which translates to trust in Arabic.
Credit: Wajiha Mekki

Current Challenges

The bright colors of Bo-Kaap represent hope, but that hope is being dimmed by current challenges. As a result of Cape Town’s economic development and expansion, property in Bo-Kaap is sought after. Businesses, AirBnBs, and other businesses are popping up. But this growth has been at the expense of the community, which is facing a dissolution of its character and unity. It has also negatively impacted community members by resulting in the eviction of long-term tenants due to landlords raising the rents and changing ownership to pursue commercial properties over residential ones, effectively leaving communities to have lived there for years without stability.

In the face of these difficulties, there have been many efforts to preserve the community and heritage of Bo-Kaap. One way has been the establishment of Bo-Kaap as a Heritage Protection Overlay Zone, which is a special planning layer for Bo-Kaap to protect its historic nature. This is effective on paper, but residents have mentioned the presence of loopholes that make it difficult for this measure alone to truly protect the community in Bo-Kaap. Protests are also critical in how the community expresses its concern, as protests allow residents to share their sentiments about how they are overwhelmed by extreme tourism.

The situation described here depicts the tension between development and cultural rights, especially as the right to housing security and the right to cultural heritage are emerging as dimensions of human rights. 

Photo 3: Photo of lined houses on Dorp street in Bo-Kaap.Credit: Wajiha Mekki
Photo 3: Photo of lined houses on Dorp street in Bo-Kaap.
Credit: Wajiha Mekki

Why Bo-Kaap Matters Today

From slavery to Apartheid to gentrification, Bo-Kaap represents a community that safeguards human rights. The idea of identity and heritage being at the core of human rights in Bo-Kaap represents the global struggle of equity, equality, and inclusion. In the modern context of communities striving for space, history, and belonging, it is critical to understand marginalized communities and understand their contributions to society. In addition, protecting these places strengthens human rights and democratic values across the nation.

As I reflect on my time in Bo-Kaap and on being in the community to learn, I am grateful to have observed a sliver of the beauty of the community and am confident that intentional engagement with communities, where visitors seek to learn rather than consume, will support the long term development of communities across the world. Bo-Kaap and its resilience through Apartheid and gentrification demonstrate the value of community when approaching challenges. The Bo-Kaap community has suffered many violations of the right to housing, expression, and more; as we work to support communities, it is critical to listen to their stories and approach solutions holistically.

 

High-Income Countries Retreat from Rights-Based Policy

The General Assembly adopts a resolution on the 2025 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, which was also adopted concurrently by the Security Council, during the 51st plenary meeting of the General Assembly
The General Assembly adopts a resolution on the 2025 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. UN Photo/Loey Felipe

In recent years, we have seen high-income countries fail to uphold commitments by retreating from prior obligations to health and reversing environmental protections that were once collective imperatives. This reveals a broader pattern of countries abandoning formerly binding principles, treating equity and rights as lesser considerations. More than budgetary shifts, these movements reflect a widespread prioritization of trade, security, and short-term geopolitical advantage. The United States, with its expedited migration enforcement and aggressive international maritime operations, demonstrates how rights-centered diplomacy is undermined by deceptive national security prioritization (OHCHR 2025; Council on Foreign Relations 2025). Recent reporting on U.S. ‘drug boat’ strikes, which have condemned by the UN as illegal, further illustrates how security practices can erode international legal norms (The Independent 2025). These retreats from the rights-based approach to international relations signal a broader crisis of credibility in international commitments, where promises of fairness are increasingly subordinated to immediate political gain. This blog observes how foreign policy instruments are steering away from human rights and how external shifts cause domestic rollbacks in civil protections.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948, is a foundational document that sets out 30 articles affirming universal rights and freedoms, establishing a global standard for dignity, equality, and justice (United Nations 1948). Similarly, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the UN in 2015, are a set of 17 global targets designed to reduce inequality, strengthen institutions, and promote sustainable development worldwide (United Nations, 2015). These provide operational commitments and normative measures needed for international engagement – specifically SDG 10 on inequality and SDG 16 on inclusive institutions (United Nations, 2015). The European Union (EU) Charter and Council of Europe further specify obligations for rights-consistent external policies that member states are expected to honor (European Union 2012; Council of the European Union n.d.). Implementing these standards requires consultation with affected communities, funding for civil society partners, and independent impact assessment mechanisms that adjudicate trade‑offs between security, trade, and rights (American Bar Foundation 2023; Oxfam Novib & Oxfam International 2025). Without these mechanisms, performative politics obscure whether rights protections are effectively implemented (IOB 2024).

Hendrikus Wilhelmus Maria (Dick) Schoof, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s eightieth session.
Hendrikus Wilhelmus Maria (Dick) Schoof, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s eightieth session. UN Photo/Loey Felipe

Diplomacy and Foreign Policy

There are four primary indicators of rights retreat within current foreign policy:

  1. Reallocations within national budgets have begun prioritizing short-term geopolitical goals over sustained rights-programming (IOB 2024).
  2. Emerging trade and technology agreements have abandoned civil society concerns, instead including unenforceable measures for rights-fulfillment (UNCTAD 2025; European Commission 2024).
  3. Governments have begun to shift migration discourse from protection to control at the expense of asylum safeguards (Beltran Saavedra et al., 2025).
  4. Aid and cooperation conditions are no longer effective in leveraging compliance due to uneven application and enforcement (IOB 2024; Oxfam Novib & Oxfam International 2025).

More than abstract trends, these four indicators underscore shifts between discourse and practice. Each of these mechanisms is exemplified by the 2017-2022 evaluation of Dutch support to human rights (IOB 2024). The Dutch Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) (2024) found persistent gaps between rhetorical commitments and complete implementation. Budgetary shifts in this report show reduced or threatened funding for civil-society watchdogs and sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR). Barriers to sustained funding and coordination – in combination with fragmented national agendas on trade, migration, and security – produces contradictions which limit the effectiveness of rights clauses and undermine the durability of long-term human rights programming and international initiatives. The inconsistent application of rights-conditionality (the requirement that governments uphold human rights standards in exchange for aid or cooperation) and restricted civil-society consultation has signaled to grassroots actors that their role in policy creation is expendable (Douch et al., 2022). Rather than through outright rejection, these findings show retreats in rights-centered diplomacy through incremental reallocation of budgets away from civil-society and rights programming and incoherence across geopolitical agendas, such as trade, migration, and security agendas (Netherlands Helsinki Committee 2025).

The Dutch case shows how fragmented agendas and weakened accountability measures echo throughout multiple levels of international policy, allowing prior commitments to appear negotiable. Civil society actors warn that such shifts promote neighboring governments to follow suit, leading to a broader pattern of accountability problems (Netherlands Helsinki Committee 2025; Oxfam Novib & Oxfam International 2025). This retreat, which is in direct contradiction of the principles enshrined in the UDHR, SDGs, and EU charter, sets the stage for parallel erosions where domestic rights protections are at risk.

Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s eightieth session.
President of United States of America Addresses 80th Session of General Assembly Debate. UN Photo/Laura Jarriel

Rights and Domestic Policy

The impacts of international retrenchment – retreats from commitments to health, climate, and rights-based foreign policy – do not remain external. These withdrawals negatively affect domestic enforcement mechanisms and social expectations surrounding rights implementation. When multilateral agreements rapidly deprioritize rights, this becomes normalized, emboldening domestic governments to strip protections at home. This feedback loop allows weakened rights-focused diplomacy and domestic rights rollback to reinforce one another. This cycle not only weakens rights protections but also reshapes public expectations, making exclusionary practices appear normal and acceptable.

In the United States, coercive practices at home (such as accelerated removals of migrants and courthouse detentions of asylum seekers) demonstrate how isolationist attitudes abroad have begun to change acceptable federal action (UCLA Law Review 2023; OHCHR 2025). These practices are incentivized by orders that prioritize border control and the rapid returns of migrants to their countries of origin (or “safe third party” countries or countries with “deportation deals”) (The Olive Press, 2025; Democracy Now, 2025). This pushes agencies to expand detention, expedite cases, and limit court oversight, factors that weaken due process (UCLA Law Review 2023; UNHCR 2025). The US is not alone here; several high-income countries are seeing migration issues reframed as management problems. Tightened asylum processing, shorter appeal windows, and over-reliance on administrative solutions all lead to eroded procedural protections for non-citizens and displaced people (Beltran Saavedra et al. 2025; UNHCR 2025).

The stability of rights depends on institutional resources and sustained commitment. When supervision decreases, governments advance these restrictive agendas without restraint, leaving vulnerable populations unprotected (Herre & Arriagada 2025; ILGA‑Europe 2024). This leads to lower civic participation, polarized public spheres, and diminished capacity for collective problem solving (CivicPulse, 2025). These deficits weaken civic infrastructure and amplify exclusionary narratives (American Bar Foundation 2023). What begins as external retrenchment becomes an internal erosion of democratic resilience, hollowing out safeguards that once constrained state power and leaving societies more vulnerable to authoritarian appeals.

Reimagining Rights-Centered Diplomacy

High-income countries must recommit and reinvest to undo harm and re-embed rights in diplomacy. This will involve dedicated funding for civil society partners, binding impact assessments, and robust oversight mechanisms with procedural safeguards (IOB 2024; UNHCR, 2025). Domestic resilience requires enforcement of judicial review and sustained support for watchdog institutions that defend minority rights against political pressures (American Bar Foundation 2023). These reforms prioritize long-term protections and reinforce institutional infrastructure to withstand short-term pressures. This, along with the recommendations from the IOB (2024) evaluation, ensure that rights commitments remain operational and also restore local and global credibility. High-income countries are faced with two options: accept the continual loss of civic trust and democratic security or invest in durable institutions that can safeguard rights amid geopolitical volatility.

Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sentenced to Death

An illustration of Bangladesh with protest against the 30% quota.
Image 1: Illustration, students killed in Bangladesh, Quota reform movement/anti-quota protest. Source Adobe Express. By Nasima. Asset ID: 902673984

More than a year ago, in 2024, a student-lead protest turned violent, after armed forces began attacking. Recently, the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, and her Minister of Home Affairs, Asadduzzaman Khan Kamal, were accused of crimes against humanity. Both were found guilty of these crimes on November 17, 2025 by the International Crime Tribunal of Bangladesh. Those in attendance cheered as the verdict was announced; many had been personally affect by the violent attacks on the protest, either by injury or having lost a loved one. The seats meant for Hasina and Kamal remained empty throughout the entirety of the trial. This did little to stifle the pure excitement that filled the walls, inside and outside, as the words death penalty fell from Justice Md Golam Mortuza Mozumder’s lips. For their crimes against humanity, both of the accused are condemned to the ultimate punishment: death.  

It is worth noting that the death penalty directly undermines the right to life and the right to not experience inhumane punishment. These rights are outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The first, right to life, is discussed in Article 3 of the UDHR and the second, no inhumane punishment, is talked about in Article 5 of the UDHR.

The three week student-led protests in 2024 ended in violence and the death of hundreds of students. The protests were against the reinstatement of a 30% quota that reserved government positions for family members of veterans from Bangladesh’s independence war. In a blog post titled The Awaiting Arrest Warrant of Bangladesh, Tamanna Patel offered an in-depth evaluation of the protests, the escalation of violence, and Hasina’s resignation of power. Building on this, this blog will briefly discuss the events that occurred during the protest, the aftermath of the protest, and Hasina and Kamal’s trial, verdict, and sentencing. 

The History and Allegations

Dhanmondi, Dhaka Bangladesh burning cars after Hasina fell from power, August 5th, 2024. Source: Adobe Express. By Tanbin Asset ID: 956192001
Image 2: Dhanmondi, Dhaka Bangladesh, burning cars after Hasina fell from power, August 5th, 2024. Source: Adobe Express. By Tanbin Asset ID: 956192001

What started as a peaceful protest on July 15th, 2024 by Dhaka University students quickly turned deadly when armed forces began attacking protesters. Batons were swung, guns raised, and tear gas fired into the crowds by members of the Bangladesh Chatra League (BCL) and later by the police. The steadily increasing death toll fueled the discontent amongst protesters. After the country went offline for five days, the death toll rose to 200 and the arrested to a minimum of 2,500.

According to Article 41 of the United Nation (UN) Charter, the Security Council has the right to conduct international tribunals and put those who are accused of heinous crimes, such as crimes against humanity, on trial. In the aftermath of the protests, the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh was tasked with bringing a case forward against Hasina, Kamal, and the former police chief Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, all of whom played a hand in ordering Bangladesh’s armed forces to use lethal weapon against students during the protests. The attacks on protesters with lethal weapons are considered crimes against humanity. Because of their involvement, all three of the accused were tried for the crime of purposely targeting civilians. 

The Trial, Verdict, and Sentencing

The Bangladesh flag against a blue sky.
Image 3: The national flag of Bangladesh against a blue sky. Source: Adobe Express. By GDMatthews. Asset ID: 515525562

The following elements must be met for a crime to be considered a “crime against humanity.” The first is that “the perpetrator killed one or more persons.” In the case of Hasina, Kamal, and Al-Mamun, their orders to use lethal weapons on protesters, which resulted in mass casualties, fulfills the requirement for the first element. The second is that the crimes were “committed as part of a systematic or widespread attack directed against a civilian population.” The student protesters would be the civilian population, and the multiple attacks at various protests across the country within a short time period could be seen as systematic or widespread attacks. The final element is that “conduct was part of or intended … to be part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.“ For this tribunal, it was essential that the intent behind the attacks on the protesters be proven to be systematic or widespread.

The prosecution’s closing statements on October 16th, 2025 reiterated the severity of the crimes against humanity that Hasina and Kamal committed and called for both to receive the death penalty. The prosecution stated that due to orders by Hasina and Kamal, widespread, systematic attacks were carried out. One of the main arguments supporting this assertion was that members of the Awami League —supporters of Hasina– joined the police in violently attacking student protesters. 

The defense, on the other hand, stated that the violence was not widespread, arguing that if it had been, it would have occurred throughout the entirety of Bangladesh. The defense attorney stated that there were not enough witnesses to the violence across the country and that it is possible that some of the videos of violence could be AI. The prosecution team had 54 witnesses and the defense had none. In addition, the defense attorney brought into question the validity of the former chief of police, Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun’s, testimony, as he could just be throwing the blame onto the other two accused. 

Experts at the Atlantic Council, a think tank, note that this sentencing might further increase division within Bangladesh. With elections quickly approaching, the former ruling party, Awami League, has essentially been banned from running. Because of this, the possibility of further violence is a valid concern. For some, the death penalty is critical for holding the government accountable. Others believe the sentencing is not justice and will only work to further polarize the people of Bangladesh. 

Undoubtedly, this verdict and sentencing have offered the families and friends of those killed in the protest some form of comfort. For many closely affected by the aftermath of the 2024 protests, this is justice. For others, the speed of the trial, absence of the defendants, and the banning of the Awami League from national elections make the tribunals seem politically motivated. While Hasina and Kamal received the death penalty, the former chief of police received only five years in prison. Although he did testify against the two leaders, there is a significant gap in the severity of the punishments. With Hasina and Kamal remaining in India, it is not yet clear whether they will be extradited by the Indian government. Dhaka (where the government of Bangladesh is located) has implemented an extradition treaty, but New Delhi responded that they will do what benefits the people of Bangladesh the most.

Conclusion

Although the fairness of the trial has been brought into question, the consequences of the armed forces attacking student protestors remains. It is evident the people of Bangladesh desire governmental change and accountability for its past actions. Using lethal weapons on civilians is a crime against humanity. For now, Hasina and Kamal have not been extradited, and it is uncertain whether or not their punishment will occur. Indeed, the punishment in itself can be viewed as a human rights violation. While their crimes undoubtedly undermined human life, so too does their sentencing undermine their right to life. It is a vicious cycle of violence that occurs when the death penalty is used. Regardless of their punishment, there is little that can be said to justify such a use of force. Only time will tell whether or not those responsible for such crimes will be punished. 

Indigenous Groups Demand Change at COP30

The United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP, brings together nearly every country annually for a “multilateral decision-making forum on climate change.” Leaders in business, science, governance, and civil society organizations attend to “strengthen global, collective and inclusive climate action.” In the first organized protests at a major climate summit since 2021, thousands of Indigenous activists marched the streets of Belém, Brazil, the site of COP30 in 2025, to demand action on a range of issues. COP30 Executive Director Ana Toni stressed that the protestors had legitimate concerns and that Brazil’s democratic government allows for “different forms of protest.” Protestors travelled from across South America to call for Indigenous representation in the formulation of global climate policy and to spotlight local Indigenous land sovereignty issues.  

Leaders at COP30 climate panel
Leaders discuss climate action at COP30 panel. By: peopleimages.com. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 1782077705

Demand for Demarcation 

Signs at the marches read “demarcation now,” demanding that states, particularly Brazil, transfer legal ownership of land to Indigenous peoples. Brazil’s Minister for Indigenous Peoples, Sonia Guajajara, echoed the protesters’ sentiment, claiming that one goal of COP30 is to ensure that “countries recognise the demarcation of Indigenous lands as climate policy.” Demarcation is more than an issue of sovereignty or law; it is also a strategy for environmental conservation. Indigenous communities tend to their local forests and bodies of water using unique cultural knowledge. Some research suggests that Indigenous caretaking can enhance wildlife biodiversity, decrease deforestation, and mitigate disease. The UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognizes that Indigenous cultural practices “[contribute] to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment.”  

Amid the encroachment of mining companies and the recent authorization of oil drilling near the mouth of the Amazon River, one Indigenous leader stated, “We want our lands free from agribusiness, oil exploration, illegal miners and illegal loggers.” He also said, “We can’t eat money,” critiquing the focus on climate finance at previous COP summits while environmental degradation continues.

Advocates have called for the Brazilian government to abandon the marco temporal legal theory, which holds that only lands allotted to Indigenous peoples during the 1988 adoption of the Brazilian constitution are eligible for demarcation.

In a breakthrough, the Brazilian government announced at COP30 that it would, for the first time since 2018, demarcate ten Indigenous lands. The UNDRIP states that redress, including land repatriation, should be provided to Indigenous peoples whose property was taken without their consent. All 193 UN member states have adopted the UNDRIP, but it is a non-binding declaration, meaning states must decide whether to incorporate its ideals in their national laws. Brazil’s demarcation efforts exemplify the commitments outlined in the UNDRIP.

Violence in Guarani-Kaiowá

The murder of Guarani and Kaiowá Indigenous peoples during the final week of COP30 by private security forces demonstrates the importance of demarcation and protection of Indigenous lands and their peoples. Attacks on the Guarani and Kaiowá communities over land disputes in the state of Mato Grosso Do Sul, Brazil, have an ongoing history. In 2024, the head of UN Human Rights in South America called for land demarcation and a full investigation into these attacks. In the Guarani-Kaiowá struggle to regain sovereignty over their land, which has largely been lost to agribusiness, activists and spokespersons have been targeted by security forces allegedly hired by estate owners.  

Global Witness has tracked murders and disappearances of environmental defenders since 2012, and Indigenous leaders, particularly in Central and South American countries, are overrepresented among the victims of these attacks. According to the report, extractive, land, and agribusiness industries have been linked to these attacks. These attacks underscore the importance of demarcation for Indigenous peoples in South America. 

Indigenous woman walks on a mountainside in Peru.
Indigenous woman walks on a mountainside in Peru. By: sayrhkdsu. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 451597782

Brazil’s Environmental Policy 

Before the conference, the Brazilian government positioned itself as a climate leader, but some have criticized the current administration’s inconsistent attitude toward environmental conservation. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has overseen a significant reduction in deforestation, which was ramped up under former President Bolsonaro’s leadership, but some environmental groups have denounced the recent authorization of oil drilling near the Amazon River. The president argues that oil will remain a necessity for years to come and that Brazilians should profit from it. Others point to the Amazon rainforest’s crucial role in storing carbon and reducing global atmospheric greenhouse gases. Some evidence suggests that the Amazon could become a savannah in the coming years as deforestation and drought intensify.  

Like Brazil’s broader environmental policy, recent actions have included successes for Indigenous rights, as well as failures to protect marginalized groups. The country recently undertook the Ywy Ipuranguete, or “Beautiful Land“, initiative, which aims to strengthen Indigenous-led land management efforts across fifteen Indigenous lands, accounting for six million hectares of land. The Brazilian Biodiversity Fund states, “the project focuses on strengthening sustainable territorial management.” When Indigenous communities are given access to collective property rights over land, there is a marked decrease in deforestation in these areas. Experts at a 2019 UN conference highlighted the importance of Indigenous participation in conservation efforts. 

The Federal Prosecutor’s Office in Brazil is suing the mining company Vale and the Brazilian government for “heavy metal contamination in the bodies of Xikrin Indigenous people.” The company’s nickel mining contaminated the Catete River and Indigenous lands, the lawsuit alleges. A study conducted by the Federal University of Para found nickel levels as high as 2,326% above the safe limit in one woman.  

Aerial view of Amazon rainforest in Brazil.
Aerial view of Amazon rainforest in Brazil. By: Curioso.Photography. Source: Adobe Stock. Asset ID#: 339931047

COP30 Outcome 

Brazil’s tepid attitude towards climate policy reflects the results of COP30. While $5.5 billion was raised for the Tropical Forests Forever Fund, with 20% going to Indigenous communities, the Conference fell short of an explicit commitment to move away from fossil fuels—despite a warning from scientist Carlos Nobre before the final talks that continuing fossil fuel use beyond 2040 will lead to catastrophic temperature increases, collapsing the Amazon rainforest ecosystem. UN leadership emphasized the significance of a multilateral agreement in an era of geopolitical strife, despite the agreement’s limitations. The COP30 president, André Corrêa do Lago, conceded that “some […] had greater ambitions for some of the issues at hand,” acknowledging the gap between the Indigenous protestors’ demands for a radical change in climate policy and the material commitments made at the Conference. 

In a potent moment of recognition for Indigenous grievances, do Lago held an Indigenous baby before leading a group of protestors to an hours-long discussion. Indigenous participation in COP30 yielded wins for Indigenous communities, even if the global commitments did not go as far as some hoped. 15 governments agreed to support the Intergovernmental Land Tenure Commitment, which will “collectively recognise and strengthen 160 million hectares of Indigenous Peoples and local community lands” across tropical forest regions. While progress in the fight for environmental protection and Indigenous rights is staggered, Indigenous protestors made their presence felt at COP30, showing the world that Indigenous participation in environmental conservation matters. 

 

The Silent Epidemic: Why Syphilis is Surging

Syphilis is an infection that has killed millions over the span of centuries and affected key figures like Al Capone and Edouard Manet. When the life-changing development of antibiotics arrived, it brought the disease under control, and, for years, syphilis outcomes improved. However, syphilis is on the rise again across the world. In 2025 alone, more than 20 babies in Hungary have died of congenital syphilis, which means they contracted the disease from their mothers. The advancement of syphilis is occurring not just abroad, but domestically, as well. In Mississippi, there has been an 80% increase in recent cases and a 1000% increase in congenital syphilis in the last six years. The global danger of the resurgence of the disease represents a medical danger and a failure to uphold the right to health. As syphilis is a preventable and treatable disease, these rising cases globally expose inequities in healthcare access, surveillance, and social determinants of health. 

What is Syphilis?

Syphilis is caused by Treponema pallidum bacteria and is a sexually transmitted infection. Women can also pass the disease to their babies during pregnancy; this is considered congenital syphilis. The development of the infection is broken up into four different stages: primary, secondary, latent, and tertiary. 

Each stage is categorized by different outcomes and demonstrates the development of the disease. The primary stage is categorized by the appearance of a sore; though it is a minor sight, testing and treatment is still critical at this stage to ensure that the infection does not transition into the secondary stage. This next stage is categorized by the appearance of rashes and symptoms like swollen lymph glands and a fever. Treatment is critical at this stage as it addresses key symptoms and prevents the development of latent and tertiary stages. Latent stage represents a short period in which there are no signs or symptoms; this tends to induce no urgency for treatment, which in turn can result in further disease transmission and congenital syphilis. The tertiary stage, which is the final stage, includes significant damage to organ systems and can result in death. There is also the risk of development of neurosyphilis, which is when the disease spreads into the nervous system, ocular syphilis, which is when syphilis spreads to the eye, and otosyphilis, which is when the bacteria spreads to the ear. This type of spread can occur at any stage and compounds the debilitating nature of the illness. 

When syphilis remains unchecked, it violates the right to health.

Treatments and Prevention

Key interventions for syphilis include medical tests, for example a treponemal test, which is a blood test that is often given after certain physical symptoms appear and which indicates whether the patient has ever had syphilis. Latent infections require serologic testing, which identifies antibodies in a patient’s blood to identify that there is either a current infection or that there has been a previous infection. Gathering this information is critical, considering this stage of syphilis is categorized by no symptoms or signs. Upon testing and confirmation of the presence of syphilis, usually penicillin is administered; this intervention is quite successful but poses a risk for individuals who are allergic to penicillin and those who have limited access to healthcare providers who can not only administer the medicine but also educate the patient about the appropriate treatment regime. 

Syphilis prevention consists of general safe sex tips, such as condom usage, consistent testing, and communication with sexual partners. These practices, however, are restricted by disparities observed across the globe. For example, data suggests that there is a negative association between a region’s Social Demographic Index and unsafe sex; this contributes to the risk of sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, that rise as a region’s Social Demographic Index (an indicator that is composed of “total fertility, per capita income, and average years of education“) falls. 

Photo 1: Rapid point-of-care syphilis test.Source: Wikimedia Commons: CDC Public Domain
Photo 1: Rapid point-of-care syphilis test. Source: Wikimedia Commons: CDC
Public Domain

The Global Surge of Syphilis

Global disparities have enabled a surge of syphilis. From 2020 to 2022, the number of new adult syphilis cases across the globe increased from 7.1 million to 8.0 million; this correlates to a global prevalence of active syphilis of 0.6% in 2022. The burden is also observed in congenital cases. In 2022, the congenital case rate was 523 per 100,000 live births, representing over 390,000 adverse birth outcomes including stillbirths, low-birth weights, and neonatal deaths. 

Beyond the global statistics that demonstrate the general outcomes of the disease, it is critical to understand the burden of the infection through a regional lens. In 2020, Africa, the Americas, and the Western Pacific were burdened significantly more than their global peers, with incidence rates of 96 million, 74 million, and 86 million, respectively. These areas have limited access to adequate screening opportunities, which not only impacts adult populations but also allows for congenital syphilis to remain rampant. Additional factors, such as stigma, contribute to barriers, especially for men who have sex with men, which allows for the further development of the disease.

The development of the disease burden reflects structural and social failures that leave vulnerable communities unable to support themselves and their health. For example, key populations affected by syphilis include gay men and men who have sex with men; these populations are already underrepresented and underserved.

The Future of Change

Despite these challenges, significant progress has been made to support the development of key systems and procedures in the fight against syphilis. This was a key goal of the World Health Organization in 2025, and the organization hopes to end sexually transmitted disease epidemics within the next five years. 

To accomplish this goal, the World Health Organization worked with countries to develop plans for how to address sexually transmitted diseases, provided case management guidelines, recommended dual HIV and syphilis rapid diagnostic tests, and more. Specific recommendations were made regarding syphilis through testing and partner services. Generally, the adoption of key policies to fight sexually transmitted diseases has been observed in Africa, the Americas, and the Western Pacific, which is encouraging in terms of improving access to the right to health. Some delays in introduction of these approaches have been seen in some countries due to geopolitical instability, but general trends suggest uptake of recommendations and progress towards the 2030 goal. In order to ensure that this goal is achievable, key resources need to be mobilized and made accessible to ensure progress does not stall. 

Conclusion

Although progress has been made in terms of syphilis prevention and treatment, additional approaches are critical to ending the crisis. In tandem with support from multilateral collaboration, it is critical to strengthen public health access. From mobilizing additional resources to providing accessible screening, vulnerable communities can gain access to resources that would allow them to take ownership of their health outcomes. This would be accompanied by educational efforts to help destigmatize sex education and reduce disease transmission. Alongside these interventions, surveillance and data collection is critical, because this will not only document changed outcomes, but it will also help identify opportunities for collaborations, making health systems more resilient. 

Because syphilis is a treatable and preventable infection, it is clear that this global resurgence of the disease is not inevitable; rather, it is an outcome of inequity, stigma, and broken systems. When working to preserve the right to health, people need to be protected both right now and for generations to come.

Accessible, Affordable, and AI: How Artificial Intelligence Can Advance Healthcare Access

Between the Constitution of the World Health Organization, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the human right to a high standard of physical and mental health has been determinedly codified in international law. Providing this is more difficult. According to the World Health Organization, mostly low and lower-middle income countries will experience a healthcare shortage of 11 million workers within five years, and an estimated 4.5 billion people already lacked access to affordable essential care in 2021. Evidently, the global healthcare system needs a lifeline; with staff shortages and unmet needs, this help cannot come soon enough. Despite my criticisms of Artificial Intelligence’s implementation in healthcare due to data failures and biases, there is real potential for Artificial Intelligence to make the human right to health more accessible, affordable, and efficient. From wearable devices to Telehealth to risk and data analysis, the implementation of AI within healthcare systems can help relieve medical professionals from menial tasks, provide better access to health services for the disadvantaged, and aid in the overall efficiency of often bottlenecked healthcare systems.

REMOTE SERVICES & WEARABLE PRODUCTS

The access to one’s human right to adequate healthcare can be largely determined by geolocation; rural populations suffer significantly worse health outcomes than their urban counterparts, largely due to isolation from hospitals and medical professionals. People living in rural areas may not have the time or financial means to access efficient, affordable health services. Artificial Intelligence can help address this disparity by powering remote services such as Telehealth, aiding individuals in contacting physicians, and even potentially generating diagnoses without patients’ having to sacrifice their time or resources to travel. The primary use of AI within Telehealth aims to alleviate scheduling problems by training algorithms to match patients with the proper providers and ensure the smoothness of scheduling and accessing virtual appointments. This could significantly reduce the delay in access to Telehealth services that rural patients can experience.

A man measures his heart rate on an Apple Watch
Adobe Stock, DenPhoto, #290469935
A man measures his heart rate on an Apple Watch

In addition, wearable products utilizing Artificial Intelligence have shown potential in monitoring chronic conditions, eliminating the need for frequent check-ups, and reducing the burden on healthcare providers. Using data collected by wearable devices, AI algorithms can potentially detect signs of health problems and alert those with chronic conditions if their vitals are amiss. Patients can also receive AI-generated reminders to take medications and health check-ins to ensure proper care on a day-to-day basis.

The use of remote Artificial Intelligence technology to provide healthcare services also has the potential to increase access to mental health resources, especially in rural areas, where psychological help may be expensive, far away, or overly stigmatized. AI-driven personal therapists show potential to improve access to mental health services that traditionally are difficult to schedule and afford. Artificial intelligence has been used to analyze sleep and activity data, assess the likelihood of mental illness, and provide services related to mindfulness, symptom management, mood regulation, and sleep aid. 

ACCESSIBILITY

On top of increased accessibility for rural residents, various employments of Artificial Intelligence in healthcare have the potential to cater to the needs of those with cognitive or physical disabilities. Models can aid in simplifying text, generating text to speech audio, and providing visual aids to assist patients with disabilities as they receive care and monitor their conditions. The ability of Artificial Intelligence to streamline potentially incomprehensible healthcare interfaces and simplify information can also assist elderly patients in accessing health services. Older people can often be intimidated by the complexity of online healthcare’s technological hurdles, preventing them from effectively accessing their doctors, health records, or other important resources; Artificial Intelligence can be harnessed to adapt user personalization on websites and interfaces to best accommodate the problems an elderly or disabled person may experience trying to access online care.

Generative language models, a particular type of Artificial Intelligence that uses training data to generate content based on pattern recognition, has also been employed to overcome language barriers within medical education. The ability of Artificial Intelligence models to effectively translate educational curriculum has contributed to the standardization of medical practices and standards across countries. The digitalization of this process also makes medical educational material more accessible to those without direct access to a wealth of resources, furthering the World Health Organization’s Digital Health Guidelines, which aims to encourage “digitally enabled healthcare education.” The use of AI as a translation tool within healthcare also shows broader potential to be utilized for patient care, eliminating the need for costly translators and ensuring that non-native speakers fully comprehend their diagnoses and treatments. One example of this is the American company “No Barrier AI”, which employs an AI-driven interpreter to provide immediate, accurate, and cost-effective translation for those with little proficiency in English seeking healthcare.

Side view of a focused elderly man sitting before his laptop
Adobe Stock, Viacheslav Yakobchuk, #390382830
Elderly man accesses health portal from his laptop

PATIENT AND DATA ANALYSIS

A whole other blog post could be dedicated entirely to the use of Artificial Intelligence in hospitals and as an aid to medical professionals. Broadly, the integration of Artificial Intelligence into clerical and administrative tasks, health data analysis, and care recommendations has reduced the time and money spent on the slow, bureaucratic processes that weigh down medical professionals. Nearly 25% of healthcare spending in the United States is devoted to administrative tasks, but according to a McKinsey & Company study, the adoption of AI and machine learning could save the American healthcare industry $360 billion, mostly by assisting with clerical and administrative tasks. For instance, AI systems have proved effective in boosting appointment scheduling efficiency, speeding up an infamously difficult process. Because of its ability to detect, analyze, and predict patterns, Artificial Intelligence has also been utilized to track inventory and increase supply chain efficiency, ensuring proper amounts of essential medical supplies and medicines are in stock when they are most needed.

Beyond managerial and administrative duties, Artificial Intelligence has also been integrated into clinical decision-making, data and visual analysis, risk evaluation, and even the development of medicines. Trained models have proven capable of analyzing data from brain scans, X-rays, other tests, and patient records to detect and predict health problems; this ability to detect patterns and predict outcomes has also enabled early detection of diseases and conditions such as sepsis and heart failure. Medical professionals can take the model’s analysis into account while also considering treatment suggestions from Artificial Intelligence as they proceed with patient care. This can reduce the likelihood of clinical mistakes as doctors can compare their findings with those of the AI model. Artificial Intelligence has also been used in telesurgical techniques to improve accuracy and supervise surgeons as they operate. The integration of Artificial Intelligence has also advanced vaccine development, as it aids in identifying antigen targets, helps predict a particular patient’s immune response to specific vaccinations, creates vaccines tailored to an individual’s genetic makeup and medical needs, and increases the efficiency of vaccine storage and distribution.

These are only a few examples of the potential usefulness of Artificial Intelligence within healthcare settings. The examples are countless and increasing every day, and, as I believe, the potential for further advancement is immeasurable.

Two doctors analyze brain scans on a tablet.
Adobe Stock, peopleimages.com, #1599787893
Two doctors analyze a brain scan with suggestions from AI tech

WHAT WE MUST KEEP IN MIND

While these advancements in the accessibility, affordability, and efficiency of healthcare systems show undeniable promise in accessing the human right to health, the development and integration of these Artificial Intelligence technologies must be undertaken with equality at the center of all efforts. As I highlighted in my last post, it is imperative that underlying societal biases be accounted for and curbed within these models to prevent inaccurate results and further harm to individuals from marginalized groups. A survey at the University of Minnesota found that only 44% of hospitals in the United States conducted evaluations on system bias in the Artificial Intelligence models they employed. It is essential to pursue efforts to ensure that Artificial Intelligence promotes not only the human right to health, but also the human right to freedom from discrimination within healthcare practices, especially those aided by systems potentially riddled with bias based on age, race, ethnicity, nationality, and gender.

These technologies are as practical as they are exciting. Still, as the healthcare industry moves forward, Artificial Intelligence developers and healthcare providers alike must maintain the core ideals of the Human Rights framework– equality, freedom, and justice.