Category: Human Rights Issues

Children’s Shows Today: Their Impact on Child Development and Behavior 

Overview 

Children’s television shows have a big influence on how young children learn and behave in a time when digital media permeates every aspect of daily life. Both positive and negative consequences can result from the content children consume, ranging from social skills and cognitive development to emotional regulation and moral development. It is crucial to look at how these shows affect young audiences in both positive and possibly negative ways as programming keeps changing to include new themes and methods of education.  

Young boy watching television.
Image 1: Young boy watching television. Source: Yahoo! Images

The Evolution of Children’s Programming  

Over the past few decades, children’s television has undergone substantial changes. The foundation for media aimed at teaching literacy, social skills, and emotional intelligence was established by conventional educational shows such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. These programs’ emphasis on realistic relationships, slow-paced storytelling, and likable characters made it possible for young viewers to learn things in an entertaining yet developmentally appropriate way.  

Children’s programming nowadays comes in various forms, such as interactive series, educational cartoons, stories with an adventure theme, and content that is only available on streaming services. As digital platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and YouTube Kids have grown in popularity, kids now have more access to content than ever before. Although this accessibility opens new avenues for enjoyment and education, it also brings up issues with screen time, the suitability of the content, and the long-term consequences of digital consumption.  

Positive Impacts of Children’s Shows  

Cognitive and Language Development   

A lot of children’s programs are made with learning objectives in mind. Storytelling, problem-solving, and language development are all incorporated into shows like Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, Bluey, and Dora the Explorer. According to research, preschool-aged children can benefit from well-structured educational programs that help them detect patterns, develop critical thinking skills, and improve their language skills. Asking questions and waiting for answers are examples of interactive components that promote active engagement as opposed to passive viewing.  

Social and Emotional Learning   

Children’s shows often cover concepts like cooperation, empathy, and conflict resolution. While Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood specifically teaches emotional regulation techniques through songs and relevant scenarios, Paw Patrol and Doc McStuffins are examples of programs that show teamwork and problem-solving. Children may benefit from these components as they learn to manage their own emotions and social situations.  

Cultural Awareness and Diversity   

Diverse cultures, languages, and family patterns are being reflected in modern children’s programs. Children are exposed to diverse customs and viewpoints through shows like Elena of Avalor and Molly of Denali, which promote inclusivity and deepen their awareness of the world. These programs encourage tolerance and open-mindedness in young viewers by exposing them to a range of experiences and backgrounds.  

Encouragement of Creativity and Imagination   

Imagination and artistic expression can be fostered by the storytelling, music, and creative problem-solving emphasized in many children’s shows. Children may think creatively outside the screen, thanks to shows like Peppa Pig and Curious George, which promote curiosity, exploration, and imaginative play.  

child looking at a laptop
Image 2: Child looking at a laptop. Source: Yahoo! Images

Potential Negative Effects of Children’s Shows  

Screen Time and Passive Consumption   

Excessive screen time is one of the biggest issues with children’s television. Children between the ages of two and five should not spend more than an hour a day on high-quality screens. Long-term use of screens can lead to problems regulating concentration, sleep issues, and decreased physical activity. The advantages of educational programs may also be limited by passive consumption, in which kids watch without actively participating or absorbing the content.  

Behavioral Imitation and Aggression   

Fast-paced action scenes, exaggerated facial expressions, or even mild hostility are all part of the narrative of several children’s television programs. Although many shows aim to teach morality and problem-solving skills, some topics may unintentionally encourage impulsive action. According to studies, kids who often watch fast-paced, action-packed television may be more aggressive or have trouble controlling their impulses than kids who watch informative, slower-paced programs.  

Commercialization and Consumerism   

Extensive merchandising, ranging from toys and apparel to branded snacks, is associated with many well-known children’s programs. Early brand loyalty is fostered by the frequent appearance of characters from popular television series like Paw Patrol and Frozen on a variety of consumer goods. As children may form strong brand preferences as a result of media exposure, this may encourage imaginative play but also may raise worries about materialism and the commercialization of childhood.  

Unrealistic Expectations and Stereotyping   

Even though they are entertaining, certain children’s television shows could encourage irrational expectations about relationships, achievement, and life. Certain programs may subtly reinforce preconceptions through gender-specific roles, idealized character depictions, or overstated problem resolutions. When it comes to helping kids think critically about what they watch and promoting conversations about the implications for real life, parents and other adults play an important part.  

The Role of Parents and Caregivers  

Given the possible advantages and disadvantages of children’s programming, parental participation is still crucial to maximizing the beneficial effects and reducing the negative ones. Some tips for consuming media responsibly are:  

Co-Viewing and Discussion. Watching programs with children allows caregivers to explain concepts, answer questions, and reinforce positive messages. Discussing themes and moral lessons can deepen understanding and encourage critical thinking.  

Setting Limits on Screen Time. Establishing boundaries for television and digital device use ensures that children engage in a balanced mix of activities, including physical play, reading, and social interactions.  

Selecting High-Quality Content.Choosing age-appropriate, educationally enriching programs can enhance learning experiences. Platforms like PBS Kids and Sesame Workshop offer well-researched content that aligns with developmental needs.  

Encouraging Active Engagement.Rather than passive viewing, caregivers can promote active engagement by asking children about what they watched, encouraging them to reenact stories, or relating on-screen lessons to real-life situations.  

Conclusion  

Children’s television shows continue to significantly impact the behavior and development of young viewers. Excessive screen time and exposure to inappropriate content can be problematic, while well-designed programs can promote learning, creativity, and social-emotional development. Parents who actively participate and establish a balance between education and fun can help children benefit from media use in a constructive and developmentally appropriate way. Supporting the upcoming generation of young viewers will require constant research and careful content creation as technology and storytelling continue to advance.  

 

Marriage, Inequality, and Human Rights: Rethinking a Cultural Norm 

As a philosophy student, I find the debate around marriage fascinating because it’s something almost everyone has personal experience with—whether through their own relationships, family, or society at large. On the surface, marriage might seem like a simple institution built on love and commitment, but when we dig deeper, we start to see cracks in its foundation.  

Marriage has long been regarded as a cornerstone of social life, providing structure for intimate relationships, legal benefits, and a framework for raising children. But as legal scholars and human rights advocates have increasingly pointed out, marriage also functions as a gatekeeper to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and it does not serve everyone equally. This raises serious ethical questions: Does marriage reinforce systemic inequality, particularly for women and non-traditional families? Is it time to reform, replace, or abandon it altogether? In this blog, we’ll explore three contemporary philosophical arguments about marriage and their implications for justice and human rights.  

Russian artist, Firs Zhuravlev, painted this in 1880. It depicts a newlywed woman who is exasperated and facing away from her husband
Image 1: “Unequal Marriage” by artist Firs Zhuravlev. Source: Yahoo Images

Susan Okin: Marriage Makes Women Vulnerable

Susan Okin argues that marriage, as it exists today, creates and reinforces gender-based vulnerabilities, particularly for women. In Vulnerability by Marriage, she explores how society expects women to take on most of the caregiving responsibilities, which leads to an unfair division of labor both at home and in the workplace.   

According to the American Time Use Survey by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2022, women spent an average of 2.4 hours per day on household activities, compared to 1.5 hours for men. Women were also far more likely to provide unpaid caregiving for children and elderly family members. Even in so-called egalitarian households, studies show that men’s careers tend to take priority, affecting decisions about where to live and how to divide time and resources.  

A woman overwhelmed during a tense office meeting. Her head is down and people are yelling at her.
Image 2: An overwhelming woman in a workplace. Source: Yahoo Images.

These patterns have real economic consequences. Women who step back from paid work to care for children often experience long-term wage penalties and loss of retirement savings. After divorce, the gender wealth gap becomes even more stark. A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that women’s household income fell by 41% after divorce, compared to just 23% for men.  

Okin’s critique points to a larger human rights issue: economic dependency can limit women’s autonomy and political participation. Without systemic support, such as paid parental leave, subsidized childcare, or equitable divorce laws, marriage remains a structural disadvantage for many women.  

Laurie Shrage: Should the State Be Involved in Marriage at All?

In her piece, The End of Marriage, Laurie Shrage takes Okin’s critique even further. Rather than just reforming marriage to be more equitable, she questions the role of the State in structuring intimate relationships. Shrage argues that marriage, as a state-sanctioned institution, provides legal and social privileges to some relationships while marginalizing others. If you’re married, you get tax breaks, easier access to healthcare, and legal rights over your partner’s well-being. But what about people in non-traditional relationships, cohabiting partners, or polyamorous families that don’t fit into the legal mold?  

Consider this: The U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 1,138 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. But for unmarried partners—even those in long-term caregiving relationships—those same protections are often unavailable. This creates a system of legal exclusion that disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ individuals, lower-income families, and those outside traditional family structures.  

Shrage does not argue that the state should entirely remove itself from intimate relationships. Instead, she believes the law should be restructured so that protections and benefits are not solely tied to marriage. Instead of privileging marriage, we could develop alternative legal structures that support all kinds of caregiving relationships without requiring people to fit into a specific mold. Some states have made attempts to implement this. For instance, Colorado’s Designated Beneficiary Agreements allow individuals to assign rights such as hospital visitation or inheritance without marriage. Yet these reforms are patchwork and often limited in scope.  

Scissors cutting through a marriage contract
Image 3: Restructuring the Institute of Marriage. Source: Yahoo Images.

Shrage’s argument forces us to rethink what marriage actually does. If it’s primarily about securing legal and financial benefits, then why should it be tied to romantic relationships at all? Shouldn’t anyone be able to create binding legal partnerships that reflect their chosen family structures? Shrage proposes an alternative: decoupling legal benefits from marital status. Legal agreements could allow individuals to designate financial partners, medical proxies, or co-parents without needing a state-sanctioned marriage. By ensuring equal access to legal protections regardless of relationship type, we could create a system that better serves the diverse ways people build their lives together.  

Claudia Card: Tear It All Down

While Okin and Shrage suggest ways to reform or restructure marriage, Claudia Card takes a more radical approach in Against Marriage and Motherhood. She argues that marriage is not merely flawed but fundamentally coercive—and often serves as a mechanism for control and abuse.   

One of Card’s most powerful arguments is that marriage can trap individuals in violent or exploitative relationships. Because marriage is a legal contract that binds two people together, leaving an abusive marriage often requires legal intervention—something that can be expensive, slow, and emotionally exhausting. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey by the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men have experienced severe intimate partner violence. Due to financial dependency and legal entanglement, many people find it difficult to leave abusive marriages. A 2020 study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that economic abuse, like controlling access to money or employment, was a key barrier to leaving. In many cases, the legal system inadvertently works to sustain abusive relationships by making it harder for the abused partner to leave, which is the fundamental reason why Card believes marriage, in any form, is beyond repair.    

A sad child looks at the camera as her distressed parents sit behind her
Image 4: A visual representation of the harms marriage can bring. Source: Yahoo Images.

Additionally, Card critiques the cultural glorification of motherhood. While motherhood is often idealized, mothers in the U.S. face one of the highest unpaid caregiving burdens in the developed world. The U.S. is the only wealthy country without guaranteed paid maternity leave. Women, especially single mothers, are left to shoulder the costs of caregiving without adequate support, leading to heightened rates of poverty, stress, and burnout.  

Card’s radical proposal—to abolish marriage as a legal institution—calls for building new social structures based on mutual care and autonomy rather than control and dependency. From a human rights standpoint, her argument challenges us to rethink whether any institution should have the power to limit freedom, security, or self-determination.

Where Do We Go From Here?

In philosophy, we often come back to the same fundamental question: Should we work within the system to make it more just, or should we tear it down and start over? Okin, Shrage, and Card each offer different visions for the future of marriage, but they all agree on one thing—the way things are now isn’t working.  

At its core, the debate about marriage is a human rights issue. Who gets access to economic security, legal protections, and social recognition—and at what cost? And marriage laws don’t just reinforce inequality for adults; they also impact vulnerable populations in ways we rarely acknowledge. For example, child marriage remains legal in parts of the U.S.—a reality that raises serious ethical concerns.  

Our three authors all highlight different ways in which marriage has historically marginalized certain groups, particularly women, and ask us to consider alternative frameworks that promote justice and equality. Whether through reforming marriage, removing state involvement, or abandoning it altogether, the goal should be to ensure that all individuals—regardless of their relationship status—have equal rights, protection, and autonomy. As we continue to challenge traditional norms, we must prioritize human dignity, fairness, and inclusivity in the ways we structure relationships and social institutions.  

Human Rights Concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory 

 Overview 

The Austin, Texas-based Tesla Gigafactory is regarded as a pillar of innovation, pushing the boundaries in sustainable production and economic expansion. However, serious human rights issues have emerged behind the news of economic revival and technical advancement. These problems, which range from claims of discrimination and labor exploitation to infractions of workplace safety, expose a concerning aspect of Tesla’s operations. As a leader in renewable energy and technology, Tesla needs to maintain ethical business standards in its establishments, particularly as public scrutiny increases.  

red tesla vehicle fob supercharger
Image 1: Red Tesla vehicle fob supercharger. Source: Yahoo! Images

 

Workplace Safety Concerns  

Workplace safety is one of the Gigafactory’s most urgent human rights issues. After discovering that four employees at the Austin site had been exposed to dangerous chemicals without the appropriate training or safety precautions, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) penalized Tesla close to $7,000 in November 2024. Hexavalent chromium, an extremely hazardous material that can cause cancer, damage to the kidneys, and serious respiratory problems, was being handled by the workers. OSHA claims that workers in the Cybertruck body area were exposed to significant health hazards because they lacked the necessary training to handle hazardous materials.  

Apart from this offense, Tesla is also being investigated for the August 2024 worker death that was recorded at the facility. Even though the incident’s specifics are unknown until OSHA’s investigation is finished, it raises more concerns about the factory’s safety procedures and supervision. This is not an isolated problem for Tesla; the firm has been repeatedly criticized for its record on workplace safety in several locations, which suggests a systemic issue.  

Employee reports present a worrisome image. Workers have complained that safety instruction is either hurried or superficial, with little focus on long-term precautions. Some believe that speed and output are given precedence over worker safety due to Tesla’s focus on increasing production for vehicles such as the Cybertruck. This conflict between safety and efficiency draws attention to a crucial area where Tesla’s company operations deviate from ethical standards.  

Wage Theft and Exploitation  

Widespread criticism has also been directed at labor violations that occurred during the Texas Gigafactory development. A Texas-based nonprofit group called the Workers Defense Project complained to the U.S. Department of Labor in November 2022 on behalf of construction workers employed at the facility. According to the allegations, employees were sometimes not paid at all and were not paid for overtime. Contractors are also accused of giving employees phony safety training certifications, which essentially left them unprepared for the dangers they encountered on the job site.  

These labor violations reflect a larger problem with supply chain management at Tesla. Tesla indirectly supports exploitative activities by using subcontractors who compromise workers’ protections. Under the possibility of losing their jobs, construction workers, many of whom are immigrants, said they felt pressured into dangerous working conditions. In addition to breaking labor regulations, such actions also go against fundamental human rights values, which place an emphasis on treating employees fairly and with dignity.  

The problem is made worse by the contractors’ lack of responsibility. Employees who tried to report dangerous working conditions or wage fraud frequently faced retaliation or disregard. This cycle of exploitation shows how urgently Tesla must strengthen its oversight of its contractors to guarantee compliance with ethical standards and labor laws.  

Environmental Hazards and Worker Safety  

Although the Austin Gigafactory’s environmental practices have come under fire, Tesla’s dedication to sustainability is a fundamental component of its brand identity. There were rumors in November 2024 that a broken furnace door had exposed the facility’s employees to temperatures as high as 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According to reports, this problem lasted for months as Model Y manufacturing ramped up, seriously affecting worker comfort and safety.  

Additionally, Tesla was accused by a whistleblower of manipulating furnace operations to pass emissions tests. This manipulation prompted wider environmental concerns in addition to putting workers at risk of exposure to dangerous pollutants. Tesla’s public pledge to sustainability and environmental responsibility is compromised when it uses unethical means to satisfy regulatory requirements.  

These environmental risks exacerbate an already difficult and, at times, dangerous work environment for employees. Reports of excessive temperatures, chemical fume exposure, and insufficient ventilation reveal a pattern of carelessness that endangers workers. In addition to harming employees, these circumstances damage Tesla’s standing as a leader in environmentally friendly technology.  

Tesla car production factory
 Image 2: Tesla car production factory. Source: Yahoo! Images 

Allegations of (Potential) Racial Discrimination  

Claims of racial discrimination have also sparked criticism of Tesla’s workplace culture. Although its facility in Fremont, California, has received a lot of attention, its challenges are representative of larger issues that could affect its operations in Texas. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Tesla in September 2023, claiming that Black workers at the Fremont facility experienced widespread racial harassment. The lawsuit described instances of graffiti, racial epithets, and a toxic workplace where complaints were frequently disregarded. Workers who reported such instances were subject to retribution, which included negative employment changes and terminations.  

Even though these claims are specific to Tesla’s California plant, they raise important concerns about the company’s work environment and whether the Texas Gigafactory is engaging in similar activities. According to reports from former workers, Tesla’s leadership has had difficulty addressing concerns of equity and inclusivity within the company. Such claims reveal a stark discrepancy between a company’s internal procedures and public image, which is concerning for a forward-thinking business.  

Broader Implications for Human Rights  

The human rights violations at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Texas are not isolated events; rather, they are a part of a wider trend of unethical behavior by the business. Communities like Austin have benefited economically from Tesla’s quick growth and innovation-focused approach, but worker safety, ethical labor standards, and environmental responsibility shouldn’t be sacrificed for these advantages.  

Furthermore, the significance of Tesla’s actions is increased by its influence. Being one of the most well-known businesses in the world, Tesla sets the standard for how big businesses can balance innovation and morality. Tesla runs the danger of damaging its reputation and alienating both staff and customers if it doesn’t sufficiently address these human rights issues.  

Steps Toward Ethical Practices  

Tesla must take swift action to change the way it operates and address these concerns. First and foremost, the business needs to make a stronger commitment to workplace safety by putting in place comprehensive training programs and making sure that all workers, whether they are contracted or directly employed, have enough protection. Regular audits are part of this to find and fix safety hazards before they can cause harm.  

Labor practices also need to see substantial reform. Tesla needs to hold contractors accountable for wage theft and other violations by implementing stricter oversight mechanisms. Ensuring that workers are paid fairly and on time is not just a legal obligation, but a moral imperative.  

Environmental responsibility must be prioritized as well. Tesla’s innovative reputation relies on its commitment to sustainability, and this should extend to its factory operations. Adhering to environmental regulations and maintaining transparency in emissions testing are important steps toward rebuilding trust.  

Finally, fostering an inclusive workplace culture is essential for addressing allegations of discrimination. Tesla would benefit from establishing clear channels for employees to report harassment and discrimination without fear of retaliation. Regular training on diversity and inclusion can also help create a more equitable environment for all workers.  

Conclusion  

These major concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory are a sobering reminder of the ethical challenges accompanying rapid industrial growth. From workplace safety violations to wage theft and allegations of discrimination, these issues stress the gaps in Tesla’s operations that demand immediate attention. Given its influence, Tesla has a unique opportunity to set an example for ethical corporate practices.  

By addressing these concerns head-on, Tesla can ensure that its growth benefits its bottom line and the workers and communities contributing to its success. Ultimately, the true measure of Tesla’s impact will be its technological achievements and its commitment to upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of its workforce.  

 

Rise of Right-Wing Populism in Germany’s Elections

On February 23, 2025, Germany held its federal snap elections, where it sought to reestablish stability in the parliament following the collapse of the previous government coalition. The results triggered global concern as Alternative for Germany (AfD), the country’s far-right party, finished second place, securing roughly 20% of the total vote and 152 parliamentary seats. Though the AfD will likely lack sizable influence within the parliament, unable to form a coalition and secure a majority, its rise in popularity prompts concern due to the party’s extremist ideology and questionable ties with the infamous Nazi Party. This electoral success also warrants discussion due to the impact wealth inequality played in achieving this second-place finish. Furthermore, AfD’s astonishing success aligns with a shift towards conservatism and democratic backsliding throughout Europe and the world. 

The AfD political campaign logo. A blue box surrounds white letters spelling "AfD". Around the bottom right corner is a red arrow.
Image 1: The AfD logo. Source: Yahoo Images

Understanding the Election Results

In a parliamentary system, a party’s presence in government tends to be directly tied to its popularity in an election, with seat allotment being proportional to the percentage of votes received. As Germany’s parliament has 630 seats, holding 316 is necessary to have a majority. However, due to the number of parties, it’s unlikely that one party will achieve over 50% of the vote, resulting in the formation of coalitions to meet this threshold. This method of governing allows more parties to have a voice in the government, therefore being more representative of its constituents; however, it can also lead to gridlock if coalitions cannot be created. 

Parliamentary systems reflect the political sentiment of a given time, making the shocking rise in the AfD much more apparent and concerning. The recent election saw the platform nearly double its support from the 2021 election, receiving 152 seats in parliament, totaling 20% of the vote, and granting them a second-place finish. Regardless of its sudden peak in popularity, its vast list of controversies will likely prohibit the party from holding consistent power within parliament, unable to form a coalition, though efforts have been made in the past by moderate parties to work together on stricter immigration policies.  

The incumbent party, the Union Parties (CDU/CSU), garnered 28.6% of the vote, which is represented by its share of 208 seats. Though it still finished first, its former coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), saw a dip in support, achieving only 16% of the votes, or 120 seats. Interestingly, this election saw an astonishingly high voter turnout of 82.5%, the highest it has been since the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990, highlighting the universal feeling of importance surrounding this election. Similarly, while one in five Germans voted for the AfD, almost 70% of voters view the party as a threat to democracy, implying a huge divide between the group’s supporters and its opposition. Between the high turnout and the division in AfD support, it is clear that many German citizens viewed this to be a critical election. 

AfD poster. On the top is the German parliament building. Underneath reads "Our country, our rules" in German over a blue background.
Image 2: An AfD political campaign poster reading “Our Country, Our Rules.” Source: Yahoo Images

AfD Ideology and Actions

The AfD is home to traditionally conservative and undemocratic policies, having questionable ties to Germany’s infamous Nazi Party. Regarding policy, the AfD is largely centered around nationalistic ideals and nativist ideology. Leading up to the 2025 election, AfD party member Alice Weidel declared that, if voted as chancellor, she would support a remigration program, a large-scale, forceful return of immigrants to their native countries. This message was furthered through their use of Nazi-reminiscent advertisements, which exclusively depicted native German people and encouraged heterosexual German couples to have children in the hopes of returning to a true native populace. These advertisements have also been criticized for their advocacy of traditional gender roles and family values and for reinstating the idea of German purity. 

However, concerns around the AfD go far beyond policy, as the party has held questionable views regarding the country’s Nazi past. A big objective led by the AfD and its supporters has been to demolish the firewall, a term referring to the open condemnation and banning of Nazi-affiliated slogans, symbols, and gestures. Ending this societal norm would further the party’s aim to place less societal focus on the Holocaust and, in turn, remove structures that punish those who use harmful language. This would benefit AfD leaders: In 2017, an AfD party official was fined for using the Nazi-era phrase “Everything for Germany” during a speech. Later on, this same official called the Berlin Holocaust Memorial a “monument of shame,” arguing that the country needs to completely change how it remembers its past. Similarly, Weidel has referred to Holocaust remembrance as a “cult of shame,” a phrase often used by Holocaust deniers and anti-semites to diminish memorialization efforts. 

What is further concerning is that international supporters have supported the party’s mission to distance Germany from its past. In the run-up to the 2025 elections, Elon Musk spoke at an AfD rally where he encouraged the country to end its period of guilt. He told the audience to “be proud of German culture” and not to “lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything.” United States Vice President JD Vance shared a similar sentiment at the Munich Security Council, stating that “there is no room for firewalls” with free speech. Not only have these efforts resulted in a return to Nazi-era rhetoric and rejection of the past, but it has also led to the sharing of misinformation. In an interview with Elon Musk, Weidel touted that Hitler “wasn’t a conservative” and that “he was a communist, socialist guy,” despite his recorded hatred of communism and its supporters. As the party and its supporters –both foreign and domestic– continue to push back against firewall practices, Germany could see a return to the use of Nazi-era rhetoric and blooming ignorance regarding its history, a future that could put the current state of democracy in the country at risk. 

The common thread between these policies and ideology is that they all aim to reinstate national pride in German culture at the expense of inclusivity and diversity, which have been fought for since the aftermath of World War II. This allows for the normalization of nativism, along with placing nationalism and conservatism back into the mainstream. 

German protestors march carrying a sign that reads "Bjorn Hocke (an AfD politician) Is A Nazi".
Image 3: Protestors declare “Bjorn Hocke (an AfD politician) Is A Nazi.” Source: Yahoo Images

Impacts of Wealth Inequality

A myriad of factors could have contributed to the AfD’s sudden rise, one of which was national wealth inequality, specifically the divide between former East and West Germany. During the reunification of these territories in 1990, East Germany, a former communist society, struggled to adapt to the economy of the West due to its use of outdated technology and reliance on heavy industry. Because of this, many East Germans lacked the necessary training to work in a more modern society, entering this period of unification by losing their jobs and struggling to find new opportunities. The impacts of this are still being felt over 30 years later, as former West Germans on average hold double the amount of wealth as their East German counterparts. This divide is no longer just economic; it is now political. Recent election maps show that AfD was the popular choice in the vast majority of former East German states. This region has also recently helped the party clench its first state-level position in 2024, showing the rapid growth in the AfD over the recent years. 

This development is not unique to Germany, as it has been shown that increased wealth inequality positively influences the popularity of right-wing populist ideology. As Equality Trust explains, extreme wealth inequality can lead to an erosion of trust in democratic institutions and politicians, likely influenced by feelings of deprivation and isolation. As inequality rises, these emotions become more commonly felt as populations feel excluded from society, drawing people towards populist parties on both sides of the political spectrum. This would explain why, in the case of Germany, the Left Party also saw an increase in popularity throughout the East. Furthermore, it has been found that a one-unit increase in income inequality almost directly translates to increased support for populist parties. Similarly, a small increase in wealth inequality can have a moderate impact on institutional trust, meaning that even small raises in national wealth disparity can have larger impacts on citizen approval in democratic institutions. This can influence what candidates are chosen and explain why it seems many people are turning towards anti-establishment, nationalistic politicians. While this tendency towards right-wing populism normally occurs when coupled with prior feelings of nationalism and political paranoia, increasing gaps between the wealthy and poorer segments of society can push people to support more extremist right-wing factions. This realization could help explain how the AfD has quickly risen to the mainstream and why such large voting differences occurred between former East and West Germany. 

Conclusion 

Between the party’s Nazi-reminiscent rhetoric, external pressure to detach from its past atrocities and the modern-day manifestations of long-standing wealth inequality, this rise in the AfD is worth following. Though it is unlikely that the party will hold consistent parliamentary authority, it does risk expanding influence in the future and eroding democratic stability in Germany. This event also follows the global trend towards conservatism and specifically the impact this has had on democratic backsliding within Europe.

The Pending Impeachment in South Korea

It is May of 1980. It was already the 6th and last day of the Gwangju citizens resisting the military coup of the dictator Chun Doo-hwan. Having faced massacres, executions, military forces, and endless indiscriminate and inhumane firings aimed at them, it was unity and dedication that held them strong. After this 6th day, however, their protest will be put to an end by military tanks and an uncalculated count of casualties.  

It is now March 2025, but just three months ago, on that same massacre site, the largest Gwangju newspapers blocked their newsrooms in a hurry to print copies and throw them out the windows in case paratroopers force in, as they did in 1980. A surviving child of May 1980, now in her 70s, tells others of her generation to risk their lives on the front lines to protect the younger generations on a social media platform, X.  

Details of the Gwangju Uprising tragedies remain unknown to this day; however, the current events of modern-day South Korea are open for the world to see. 

The Day of Chaos  

At 10:30 p.m. (KST) on December 3rd, 2024, Yoon Suk-yeol, the president of South Korea, left a televised address to the public, and for the first time in 44 years, martial law was declared in the country. A decree that suspended freedoms of speech, assembly, and press, as well as all political activities, warranted arrests and rights in the face of military authority and decisions. This decree inevitably challenged and threatened the human rights and freedoms of Korean citizens. According to Yoon, the justifications for this choice are efforts by the opposition party to impeach his cabinet and obstruct the government budget, as well as vague communist threats from North Korea. Justifications that Human Rights Watch refers to as “ludicrous”.  

By 10:42 p.m., an emergency meeting was called by the National Assembly, the only body that could overturn martial law. However, before the entry gates would close at 11:04 p.m., armed military special forces lined up outside in order to arrest political leaders and prevent a majority vote from overturning the decree. In the face of fear, uncertainty, and potential violence, the South Korean population, once again, came together. Many rushed out of their homes in the middle of the cold December night towards the National Assembly to clasp hands, create a barricade against soldiers and large military vehicles, and provide passage to the political officials.  

Image 1: Military special forces at the National Assembly on December 3rd. | Source: Yahoo Images
Image 1: Military special forces at the National Assembly on December 3rd. | Source: Yahoo Images

A 63-year-old, Lee Hyun-gyu, stated, “I experienced martial law in 1979…I spent three and a half hours at the rally to block this from happening again to the next generation”. The night of December 3rd quickly ignited memories of May 1980 in many of the older generation. Memories of violence, pain, grief, and loss aimed to attain pure and blind compliance. Memories of having their well-being, lives, autonomy, and basic rights stolen. Memories they refused to let themselves or others live through again. 

A spokesperson for an opposition party, Ahn Gwi-ryeong, grabbed and pushed away the barrel of a weapon pointed at her and yelled, “Are you not ashamed? Are you not ashamed?”. An act of courage that quickly became a viral video.  

With the support of the general public, 190 lawmakers were able to enter the building in time and overturned martial law under Article 77 of the constitution unanimously, including members of Yoon’s own party. A few days later, the matter was finally addressed. 

Impeachment  

On December 11th, Yoon addressed the night in his speech and denied giving orders to prevent the lifting of martial law. In contradiction, Colonel Kin Hyun-tae, leader of the special forces stationed on the night of the 3rd, states he received orders to stop at least 150 National Assembly members from entering, the exact number needed to overturn martial law, from senior commanders. Cho Ji-ho, the national police force head, states he was asked to locate and detain 15 people, including political leaders, by the armed forces. The former deputy director of the National Intelligence Service states he received an order to arrest several political leaders, broadcasters, a union official, a judge who previously ruled in favor of Yoon’s opponent, and a former chief justice of the Constitutional Court.  

Image 2: Yoon Suk-yeol giving a speech. | Source: Yahoo Images
Image 2: Yoon Suk-yeol giving a speech. | Source: Yahoo Images

On December 14th, a motion for impeachment was passed. Although Yoon continues to preside over the presidential seat, he has lost his powers. The motion was passed with the charges of ordering military and police forces to prevent voting that would overturn martial law, aiming to take over the National Election Committee, and arresting political and judicial leaders. Beginning on the 14th, the Constitutional Court has 180 days to move forward with the impeachment based upon a series of hearings. 

The Trial Begins 

Yoon did not show up for the first hearing on January 14th due to health concerns, according to his lawyer. His absence ended the hearing in four minutes. The following day, Yoon became the first president of the nation to have been detained. After hours of questioning, he was taken directly from his residence by anti-corruption officials under charges of insurrection and abuse of power. 

Since then, the sitting president has been present at the following hearings, and he continues to deny any tampering attempts on the voting of December 3rd despite military witnesses and statements that say otherwise. 

Moving Forward 

As we’ve moved through February, final hearings have been undergone, with a ruling expected in mid- or late March. Impeachment will require the favor of six out of the eight Constitutional Court judges. And if impeachment is the decision, an election must occur within 60 days. We hope that the final decision will lead to the restoration of the nation’s economic, social, and political crisis since the failed martial law.  

December 3rd was a night of fright that ignited feelings of uncertainty and fear. An attempt to compromise the human rights of the South Korean population under vague justifications. Hence, it is important to acknowledge the actions of that night to prevent another. There are various methods of support you can consider. This includes keeping yourself updated on the ongoing events, supporting civic groups such as Global Candlelight Action that have held peaceful rallies, and spreading awareness on the impeachment trials and the role of the Constitutional Court. 

Image 3: A rally held in favor of impeaching of President Yoon Seok-yeol. | Source: Flikr   
Image 3: A rally held in favor of impeaching of President Yoon Seok-yeol. | Source: Flikr

Though these efforts may seem minor, they can showcase tremendous support and concern for the rights of the South Korean population. 

The Need of the WHO

On January 20th, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). This, however, was not President Trump’s first time withdrawing from the organization; in July 2020, he signed a similar executive order. However, due to the one-year notice for withdrawal, it never took place, as President Bident revered the order. The withdrawal took place primarily due to the mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the “inability to demonstrate independence from the political influence of WHO member states.”

 

What is the WHO?

 

The WHO was established in 1948 as a specialized agency of the United Nations, consisting of 194 countries. The main role of the non-governmental organization is to set global health standards; serving as a multilateral organization motivates collaboration between all partner countries to coordinate international health response. This coordination also translates into supporting other partner countries during health crises.

One of the WHO’s roles is gathering and evaluating data from all over the world to understand the current status of health. This data spans regions and represents the holistic health of the world. Through these analyses, acute crises can be addressed in a streamlined way, and larger trends in health can be used as benchmarks to denote progress, ensuring sustained efforts.

Beyond the technical role of the WHO, it helps with on-the-ground support in countries across the world. By working to mobilize vaccines and drugs, individuals from underrepresented or marginalized communities can gain access to life-saving care. Beyond the mobilization of resources, the WHO helps coordinate humanitarian response and volunteers to ensure resources are being used appropriately. The holistic nature of the WHO and the support they provide ensures that countries worldwide are best equipped to support the health and well-being of their citizens.

 

Photo 1: Photo of WHO Poster in 1988Source: Flickr
Photo 1: Photo of WHO Poster in 1988
Source: Flickr

What has the WHO accomplished?

 

The WHO has tussled with many different diseases worldwide. For example, the WHO has helped eradicate smallpox worldwide. From leveraging the vaccine developed by Edward Jenner in 1796 to intensifying the vaccine mobilization plan in 1967, smallpox was eradicated by 1980, with the last known natural case in Somalia in 1977. This hallmark success for global health represents the first and only infectious disease ever to be eradicated.

The WHO has contributed to many other successes in the past as well, one being helping reduce polio cases worldwide by 99% since 1988. As of 2022, the number of endemic countries decreased by 123, representing the power of the WHO in reducing the global disease burden. 

The visible and less visible responsibilities of the WHO were most recently put on the front stage during the COVID-19 crisis. At the pandemic’s peak, the WHO collected data from across the world to analyze its outcomes and progress made through community health initiatives and vaccine rollouts. Beyond this, the WHO consistently released situational reports, reporting on the research they have collected thus far. Though the incidence of COVID-19 has decreased significantly and is no longer a public health emergency of international concern, the WHO still works to contain the illness and reduce adverse outcomes.

 

What is the impact of the US withdrawing from the WHO?

 

The US is one of the largest contributors to the WHO. Supporting around 12%-15% of the budget in the fiscal year 2022-2023, the US has contributed to the investment of millions of jobs, work opportunities, and streamlining functions. Without the US, all of these opportunities will stop in the upcoming fiscal year.

This support is not new to the US. Since World War II, the US has held this top funder spot, serving as a leader in global diplomacy. In an ever-globalized world, this role in the WHO affects our allies and our nation domestically. With this, the international community will suffer and have poorer health; without the investment in life-saving interventions and preventative systems, health is on the line for everyone.

Beyond the tangible impact of the withdrawal, if a decrease in health resilience is observed, there will be an increase in mistrust and a reduction in international cooperation. The withdrawal in both 2020 and 2025 resulted in increased mistrust by partnerships and organizations like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and COVAX, as well as our geopolitical allies. By increasing the vulnerability in our relationships, there is an increased risk of adverse outcomes that will compromise the health of millions worldwide. This distrust may result in the withdrawal of other vital multilateral agreements; demonstrating a lack of cooperation may result in other countries questioning their commitment to the WHO and the overall responsibility to global health.

Beyond the political and financial nuances of the US withdrawing from the WHO, the most tangible impact is the compromise of future pandemic preparedness and the creation of vulnerabilities in the global health landscape. The WHO’s holistic role relies on support to share data and track emerging health threats. Without US support, these threats cannot be effectively analyzed and will result in weakened systems.

 

Photo 2: Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus responding to questions from journalists, during the post-election press conference.Source: WHO
Photo 2: Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus responding to questions from journalists during the post-election press conference.
Source: WHO

What can we learn from the 2025 withdrawal from the WHO?

 

As it is still early in the year, there is no promise about the legislation’s longevity. However, it reminds us all about the need for bipartisan commitment to global health and development. Not only is this a safeguard to protect our own nation, but it also helps us in terms of international engagement. US foreign policy should prioritize funding for health initiatives regardless of political leadership, working to legislate commitments to our global partners.

With lack of accountability being cited as the primary reason for withdrawal, it is integral for all entities to seek avenues to increase financial transparency and independence without compromising the organization’s day-to-day operations. Collective problem-solving is reinforced by working to advocate for improvements rather than abandoning the WHO.

The temporary absence of the US in the WHO has created a void that has weakened global health cooperation in a matter of weeks. Though the official withdrawal will take around a year to feel the impact, the impact is already being noted in the attitudes and perspectives on the global stage. There is a need to uphold health as a universal human right; developing policies prioritizing equitable healthcare access reinforces the idea that we cannot combat global health alone now without the US; there is a lot of vulnerability in the unknown space.

The Loss of a Child in Marriage: U.S. Child Marriage Laws

Children in a classroom.
Image 1: Children in a classroom. Source: Yahoo Images.

Children are the most vulnerable population in the world. Their safety is relevant to the safety and success of the community. Protecting our children’s future and providing a safe and stable environment to grow up in is detrimental to everyone’s future. Typically, when we think about child marriages, we think about different countries, but the United States of America is no exception. If you would like to read about a different country and its struggles with battling child marriages, as well as the effects that child marriage has on the constituents, I will redirect you towards a fellow intern at UAB’s Institute for Human Rights, Catherine Rhodes.

Her blog evaluates the situation of child marriages in Niger and gives an in-depth explanation of the effects child marriages have. If that interests you, check out Child Marriage in Niger: A Deep-Rooted Crisis and the Path Forward. For this article, I will evaluate the state of America’s laws regarding child marriage. 

What They Lose:

School library
Image 2: School library. Source: Yahoo Images.

International human rights activists are advocating for the minimum legal age to enter into a marriage to be set at 18 years old. This age requirement is to protect both girls and boys from entering into marriages as minors. Around the world, each year, 14 million girls are married. The countries most devastated by child marriages include Niger, Chad, Mali, Nepal, and Bangladesh, to name a few. America is not on that list. However, there are loopholes in some laws that allow for minors to be married in a majority of American states. 

So long as American law allows it, children will always face the possibility of entering into a marriage as minors. It is true that America does not struggle with the same amount of child marriages as other countries. However, comparing America to another country in terms of the rate and amount of child brides does nothing to combat the fact that there are still legal ways for a minor to get married in the U.S. One child is a child too many. Laws that legalize marriage of minors are a human rights violation. When there are laws that allow for this abuse to take place, a child can never truly be safe.

Education during a person’s early stages in life is detrimental to their development. It is an opportunity to develop social and mental abilities that will help the success of their future. By entering into marriage at a young age, this development can be stifled. Education has the ability to give people the confidence and empowerment to create their own opinions and thoughts about the world. There is strength in knowledge, and once it is learned, no one can take it away from you. To stunt the growth of children is an atrocity in its own right.

Education is a key way for people, specifically young women, to delay marriage. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that education is a human right. Statistically, a girl is 6% less likely to get married every year she remains in school. In an increasingly more connected and advanced world, education is power. The majority of women who are married young drop out of school. They are expected to take care of their family, children, and home, which in turn leaves little time for personal education.

While it is not impossible for someone who is both young and married to continue their education, it is significantly more likely that their education will end soon after marriage. Child marriages will often lead to young pregnancy, which will have a lasting physical and emotional effect on a young girl. After dropping out of school, being married, and potentially starting a family, the chances of that girl returning to school are low.

Child Marriages in the U.S.:

Statue of justice outside of a U.S. Court.
Image 3: Statue of justice outside of U.S. Court. Source: Yahoo Images.

As of 2024, 13 states in the U.S. have banned child marriages. Each state that has put restrictions on the legal age of marriage has had to fight tirelessly to get them passed. Minors cannot file for divorce without the assistance of an adult, which has left legal restraints on young people and trapped them within their marriages.

The U.S. Department of State has been pushing for gender equality and stands behind the fact that the marriage of a person under the age of 18 is a human rights abuse. Nevertheless, laws supporting child marriages seem to be set in an uncrushable stone in most states. Even New Hampshire, which recently raised the minimum age of marriage to 18 years old, had to fight for 7 years to demolish the loopholes that allowed for child marriages in the state.

Out of the 50 States of America, only 22 states require proof of age for all marriage applicants. There are lax laws of proof of residency in some states, meaning that someone in a state that implements strict marriage laws could simply travel to a different state. Alabama has the 9th highest number of child marriages since 2000. From the years of 2000 to 2018, 9,166 children were allowed to marry. Around 7% of those cases would have counted as a sexual crime. In 2019, Alabama got rid of the requirement that marriage licenses have to be issued by a probate judge. There is no requirement that persons getting married must show proof of age. The legal age of marriage with the consent of a parent in Alabama ranges from 15 to 16 years old.

Some of the states with the worst child marriage restriction laws are California and Mississippi. From 2000 to 2018, 23,588 children were married in California. Close to 9,000 of those children were under 16 years old, 1,253 children were under the age of 14, 78 children were 13, and 5 children were 10 years old. State Senator Jerry Hill introduced a bill in 2018 that would abolish marriage for any minors, which went into effect in 2019. However, a minor is still allowed to get married with the consent of only one parent and a judge, and California does not require proof of age. A new bill was proposed to prohibit the marriage of minors with no exceptions in 2023, but it had to be altered to allow for underage marriage with a court order and the consent of a parent. The bill ultimately failed in the committee.

In Mississippi, from 2000 to 2018, 5,360 minors were married. Under Mississippi state law, statutory rape is not applicable in a marriage, no matter the age of the persons involved in the marriage. So long as there is parental consent, a minor can get married in Mississippi; there is no minimum age for marriage. Essentially, any male or female, no matter their age, can get married with the consent of their parents and the approval of a judge. An attempt to amend the marriage law was made in 2021 but ultimately failed, and the bill died in the legislature.

Conclusion:

All around the world, there are children lost to the shackles of marriage. They are the most vulnerable members of society and the most worthy of our protection. According to Child USA: The Think Tank For Child Protection, setting the minimum age of marriage to 18 years old, eliminating the requirement of judicial and parental consent, as well as requiring proof of residency and age can further protect children from being married as a minor. For more resources, Child USA gives reports on the state of children’s rights within the U.S. Another website to look at is Girls Not Brides, which is an organization that is dedicated to ending child marriage globally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impacts of Terminating USAID (United States Agency for International Developement)

Since early February, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been essentially disbanded, experiencing mass layoffs and the forced closure of its headquarters in Washington, D.C.. This follows President Donald Trump’s executive order, which halted all foreign assistance payments for 90 days, along with his administration’s narrative that the agency is plagued with fraud and programs that undermine national interests. Although this idea has continued to spread, the reality is that USAID is an important agency, both domestically and internationally. As United States foreign assistance funding constitutes a significant percentage of worldwide foreign aid, shutting down these programs jeopardizes the health and safety of various countries and communities but also poses issues for American citizens who work alongside these assistance efforts. 

Logo for USAID; two shaking hands in the center of the logo, the outside reads "United States Agency International Development"
Image 1: USAID’s official logo. Source: Yahoo Images.

What is USAID?

USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, is a governmental agency that aims to assist countries undergoing humanitarian crises, support marginalized groups, and monitor democratic consolidation in recently formed democracies. These goals are achieved through agency-created programs and funding non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide. Created in 1961, USAID was designed to fulfill the country’s moral obligation to use its wealth to assist other, less affluent nations while also countering the perceived influence of the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. While it may work alongside these organizations, the agency functions independently from the Department of Defense and the Department of State. Having this separation grants USAID the flexibility to work more closely with civil society groups and local communities as opposed to communicating through upper-level government officials. Similarly, projects run by and funded through USAID are generally focused on achieving a long-term goal. This focus on connecting at the local level and supporting sustained health, growth, and democracy fosters long-lasting relations with partner countries– and this type of relationship varies significantly from more transactional, political relations seen in other diplomatic channels. 

Impacts of USAID

With a budget of $71.9 billion in 2023 or 1.2 percent of that year’s federal budget, USAID is the largest donor of foreign assistance, contributing to over 40% of all foreign aid. This money is used to fund international organizations such as the World Food Program, the United Nations Children Fund, and countless other partners with similar missions, along with sponsoring numerous projects in over 120 countries. These projects include the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program designed to control the circulation of HIV/AIDS throughout heavily impacted countries. It is credited with “saving over 25 million lives, preventing millions of HIV infections, and supporting several countries to achieve HIV epidemic control,” working closely with more than 50 countries– many of those in South Africa. PEPFAR is managed, led, and largely funded by USAID, with the agency contributing to 20% of the program’s total budget. Overall, PEPFAR is viewed as a successful program, with a general increase in health outcomes in funded countries. USAID also seeks to eradicate the spread of other infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis (TB), where the agency is estimated to have saved the lives of more than 58 million patients. 

USAID also directs funding to smaller, more localized NGOs. In several Eastern European countries, for instance, money is sent to support independent media outlets and democratic organizations that consolidate democracy in post-communist states. These NGOs ensure that private media companies can compete against historically inaccurate state media sources. The agency also partnered with women’s rights groups to fight for better treatment in societies where women often face discrimination. 

A USAID worker helps two young boys.
Image 2: A USAID worker assists two young boys at a camp for internally displaced people. Source: Yahoo Images

Ramifications of USAID Termination 

Global Impacts 

The termination of USAID and the halt on foreign assistance have already begun to have negative global outcomes. In regards to medical care, the lack of funding for the PEPFAR program has triggered a suspension of medicine distribution and the closure of clinics throughout Africa, with the United Nations Program on HIV and AIDS estimating that almost 3,000 preventable HIV infections have since occurred. Similarly, the lack of adequate funding has left many clinics defunct, with officials in the Democratic Republic of Congo unable to afford air conditioning to keep necessary medicines cold. Furthermore, Syria has seen the firing of over 150 medical officials along with the cessation of 10 crucial clinics in one of the country’s most dire regions. Similar risks are faced with numerous diseases, such as tuberculosis. Without adequate funding, clinics and NGOs can no longer afford to test for or treat TB patients, nor can they maintain the staff necessary to carry out these actions. Since TB is an airborne illness, its spread is not confined to one particular area, meaning it can quickly become a much larger issue, thus making its impact even greater. 

This halt in assistance will also likely contribute to greater global inequality, where organizations that promote education, women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, and refugee assistance will likely face large funding gaps and be unable to achieve their goals. 

People rally together to defend USAID. They hold signs and wear tshirts which read "Stop the Deadly Global Aid Freeze"
Image 3: People protest against the freezing of foreign aid. Source: Yahoo Images

Geopolitical Impacts

Though many argue that USAID projects are often antithetical to the country’s national interests, the reality is that the agency allows the United States to create long-lasting, positive relations with partnering countries while preventing the extension of influence from its adversaries. Ceasing funds abruptly means that affected communities and US relations are both at risk. By turning away from foreign aid, other countries will step in to fill these funding gaps. However, by doing so, these countries can exert soft power, challenging the US hegemony. Efforts are already being made by China, which has begun to fund projects in former USAID recipient regions. Funding issues aside, this rapid change to foreign aid distribution may also reduce global trust in the US as countries question the nation’s ability to follow through on projects. This distrust could further weaken America’s diplomatic relations with both former USAID recipient countries and with new countries in the future. In short, by cutting funding, diplomatic relations are strained, and a space for competing hegemonic powers is opened. 

Domestic Impact 

While cutting USAID primarily impacts countries abroad, this termination of funding also carries domestic ramifications. As the agency is the leading provider of global humanitarian food aid, cutting USAID has also meant ending government contracts with farmers. In 2020, the federal government bought $2 billion worth of food aid from American farmers, and while this number is a small portion of the entire agriculture market, it does provide stability for those contract employees and fills a demand gap for specific grains. Even food aid received prior to the funding freeze has yet to be delivered and it is not being sent to its planned destination. 

The abrupt termination of USAID also raises questions regarding democracy and legality in the United States, as the actions taken by the current administration undermine Congress’s authority over agency creation and budgetary power. Agency creation and elimination requires Congressional approval; however, nothing has been brought to the legislative branch that requests to dissolve USAID. Similarly, these decisions are guided by the Department of Government Efficiency, a temporary contract organization. The dismantling of the agency has triggered a flurry of lawsuits, with one of them expecting a final hearing on February 21st. Since terminating USAID in this fashion is illegal, the result of the lawsuit and subsequent actions demand close attention. 

Conclusion

Cutting USAID leaves the US and the world worse off. As the nation contributes a significant portion of aid funding, countries will struggle to fill the gap, leaving poorer nations to struggle. This termination also creates issues for the US. In a time when nations continue to compete for power, the US’s seclusion from foreign aid could allow other countries to expand their influence. Similarly, diplomatic relations could be weakened as aid relations are severed with little warning. American citizens also reap the consequences, seeing large layoffs and the cancelation of government-farmer contracts. This global situation is in desperate need of monitoring as it is still unclear to what extent aid-receiving countries will struggle. 

Thailand’s Uyghur Crisis: A Decade of Detention and Desperation 

Forty-eight Uyghur men have been held in detention facilities throughout Thailand for more than ten years. Trapped in a diplomatic limbo that perfectly captures the clash of international politics, human rights violations, and the suffering of an oppressed minority. These men, who are members of a Muslim ethnic group from China’s Xinjiang province that speaks Turkic, left their country in search of safety from systemic persecution. But rather than escaping to safety, they now risk being forcibly deported back to a government notorious for its cruel treatment of Uyghurs. 

150 Uyghurs and supporters protested in Berlin after July 2009 Ürümqi riots.
Image 1: 150 Uyghurs and supporters protested in Berlin after July 2009 Ürümqi riots. Source: Claudia Himmelreich, Creative Commons

Who Are the Uyghurs? 

The northwest Chinese province of Xinjiang is home to the Uyghurs, who are an ethnic minority whose population is predominately Muslim. International human rights organizations have repeatedly reported serious violations in Xinjiang, such as forced labor, mass detentions, cultural erasure, and even accusations of genocide. The so-called “re-education camps” in China have imprisoned more than a million Uyghurs and subjected them to psychological abuse, forced sterilization, and indoctrination. 

Many Uyghurs have left China in search of safety, often going across Southeast Asia in dangerous conditions. Thailand’s close proximity has made it a popular transit country. However, many Uyghurs have been held in overcrowded facilities indefinitely instead of being granted refuge. 

Thailand’s Role: A Decade of Detention 

Nearly 350 Uyghurs, including women and children, were detained by Thai police in 2014 under the pretense of being “illegal immigrants.” Some, most notably the forty-eight men, were left behind in Thailand. Others were later sent to Turkey, a country that shares cultural and theological similarities with the Uyghurs. The individuals detained in Thailand have suffered horrendous conditions in prison over the years, with no access to healthcare, sunlight, or legal protection. 

When Thai authorities forced the captives to sign “voluntary return” forms in January 2025, their situation worsened. In a desperate protest against their protracted incarceration and impending deportation, the Uyghurs refused to comply and on January 10 began a hunger strike. 

Fears of Refoulement 

Human rights organizations are incensed by the idea of sending these men to China. The cornerstone of international refugee law, the principle of non-refoulement, would be broken by such acts, according to Human Rights Watch and other groups. Countries are not allowed to send people back to places where they risk threats of torture, cruel treatment, or persecution under the principle of non-refoulement. 

There is little uncertainty on the fate of deported Uyghurs given China’s history in Xinjiang. Prior examples have shown that repatriated individuals are subject to substantial prison sentences, forced confessions, and immediate detention. “Deporting these men to China would be a death sentence. Thailand must resist political pressure and prioritize human rights.” said Elaine Pearson, Asia Director for Human Rights Watch, urging Thailand to honor its international obligations. 

Thailand’s Political Calculations 

A larger battle to achieve a balance between national policies, international commitments, and geopolitical influences is seen in Thailand’s treatment of the Uyghur captives. Thailand has historically refrained from ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention due to worries about illegal immigration and sovereignty, and the nation’s dependence on Chinese commerce and investment makes it more difficult for it to stand firmly against Beijing. 

Despite widespread outrage, Thailand deported 109 Uyghurs to China in 2015. Chinese state media aired videos of deportees arriving in shackles and clearly distressed. The incident showed the impact of China’s global reach while also drawing harsh criticism from the UN and other international organizations. 

Uyghur children in old town Kashgar, China.
Image 2: Child’s play – Uyghur children in old town Kashgar, China. Source: Sherpas 428, Creative Commons

Hunger Strike 

The severe physical and psychological effects of indefinite incarceration are brought to light by the ongoing hunger strike. Hunger strikes, which represent the captives’ desperation, have long been used as a nonviolent protest tactic. Prolonged hunger strikes can cause organ failure, permanent health problems, and even death, according to medical professionals. However, for many Uyghurs, the risks of being detained or deported forcibly are greater than the risks of protesting. 

The detainees’ relatives have pleaded with Thai authorities to step in. In an impassioned appeal, a relative of one detained stated, “They are not criminals; they are victims… Sending them back to China is the same as signing their death warrants.” 

International Responses 

The plight of Thailand’s Uyghur prisoners has drawn attention from throughout the world. Foreign governments and advocacy organizations have called on Thailand to free the inmates and give them safe transportation to third countries that are prepared to take them in. Turkey is still a possible destination because of its sizable Uyghur diaspora. These attempts are complicated, however, given political tensions between Beijing and Ankara.  

International human rights standards are being broken by Thailand’s ongoing detention of the Uyghurs. Even though Thailand is not a member to the Refugee Convention, the UNHCR has reminded it of its duties under customary international law to prevent refoulement. 

Broader Implications 

Thailand’s Uyghur crisis is not an isolated event; rather, it is a part of a wider trend of Southeast Asian nations facing refugee challenges. Regarding their handling of Uyghur asylum seekers, Malaysia and Indonesia have also come under fire, frequently pointing to Chinese diplomatic pressure and domestic security concerns. 

Furthermore, Thailand’s actions established a concerning precedent. Global human rights frameworks are weakened if strong countries like China can apply enough pressure to compel weaker states to violate international rules. It also calls into question how international organizations hold nations responsible. 

A Path Forward 

The ongoing crisis calls for immediate action to protect the rights and lives of the detained Uyghurs. Here are some thoughts on how they should proceed: 

Release and Resettlement: Thailand should release the detainees and work with international organizations to facilitate their resettlement in third countries willing to accept them, such as Turkey or Canada. 

Strengthened Legal Protections: Thailand should consider ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, thereby aligning its policies with international human rights standards. 

Increased International Pressure: The global community, particularly Western nations, should intensify diplomatic efforts to prevent deportations and ensure the detainees’ safety. 

Monitoring and Transparency: Independent observers should be granted access to monitor the conditions of Uyghur detainees in Thailand to ensure compliance with human rights norms. 

Addressing Root Causes: The international community needs to hold China accountable for its actions in Xinjiang, addressing the root causes that force Uyghurs to flee their homeland. 

Looking Ahead 

The situation of the forty-eight Uyghur men who are being held captive in Thailand serves as an alarming example of the human cost of international indifference and geopolitical scheming. Unless Thailand and the international world step in, these people, who escaped unspeakable oppression, now face a bleak future. Respecting the values of refugee protection and human rights is not only a moral obligation but also a test of our shared humanity. 

There is, nevertheless, hope for a solution that puts human rights and international collaboration first, even though the situation is still grave. Thailand can establish a standard for treating refugees humanely and solidify its standing as a responsible global actor if it takes the appropriate actions. The future of the Uyghur captives is in jeopardy, but a fair resolution is hopefully achievable with enough advocacy. 

The Future of Trees in the Amazon and the World

If someone offered to pay you to keep trees thriving in your backyard, would you take the deal? This is the new idea proposed by Brazil to tackle climate change, starting with trees.

Prioritizing environmental sustainability has been a challenge in Brazil over the past few years. In contrast to its predecessor, the new administration has expressed its desire to restore sustainability efforts and implement stronger tree protection policies.  

Within the Amazon
Image 1: Within the Amazon. 27/02/2016. Photo: Valdemir Cunha/Greenpeace. Source: Yahoo Images

Background on the Amazon

Looking back at history, the reasons for implementing financial incentives to protect trees date back to the 1970s. Under a military dictatorship then, Brazil had clear plans to develop and integrate the Amazon into the national economy by increasing agriculture and cattle breeding in the region. To achieve this, the government incentivized people to move and start their own agricultural villages deep within the forest. Following the dream of expanding land and conquering the Amazon, Brazil continued to utilize the forest for economic development by building highways, allowing farmers to settle and work their way into the forest.  

The rhetoric of using the Amazon for national economic profit was put on hold when President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva took office in 2003. Then, several steps were taken to protect the Amazon. Little by little, legal protections were put in place, with the help of Marina Silva, who was appointed to the environment ministry in 2003 to set up a plan to deal with deforestation. At the time, only 28% of the forest was protected. Therefore, the government expanded protections by demarcating Indigenous territories, adding reserves where business activity was banned, and increasing the land where nut harvesting and rubber-tapping took place because of their low contamination and impact on the forest. To find a balance between economic profit and sustainability, the environment ministry stretched law protections to 47% of the Amazon. What’s more, the budget for the Brazilian Institute of Environmental and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA)—a police agency that investigates people committing illegal deforestation—also increased.  

By 2012, Brazil made significant progress towards sustainable solutions. What once was a call of worry by world news over the rapid deforestation shifted to optimism about the Amazon’s recovery. As awareness of the rainforest’s significance grew, so did the public uproar. Luciana Gatti, senior researcher at Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, emphasized the Amazon’s critical role in absorbing CO2. However, due to deforestation, the Amazon is reaching a turning point where it will emit more carbon than it absorbs. Unfortunately, when Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2019, his policies revived the development-focused rhetoric of the 1970s. Bolsonaro, known for being a critic of environmental protection, rejected the idea that the Amazon is the heritage of humanity, insisting that it belongs to Brazil and to Brazil only.

During the 2018 campaign, Bolsonaro vowed not to designate “one more centimeter” of Indigenous territory. Human Rights Watch puts Bolsonaro’s agenda in perspective. With 241 Indigenous territories awaiting demarcation, illegal logging, mining, and land grabbing in Indigenous lands increased by 137 percent in 2020 compared with 2018. The non-profit Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA) reported that deforestation in Indigenous territories during Bolsonaro’s first three years in office increased by 138 percent compared to 2016-2018. What’s more, the Report Violence Against Indigenous Peoples in Brazil linked high COVID-19 deaths to the government’s poor response and lack of monitoring in the Amazon. As a result of government negligence, invaders committing illegal activities in the area spread the virus through Indigenous villages. 

In addition, Bolsonaro’s administration reversed several environmental policies, weakening IBAMA. The agency experienced budget cuts of up to 30 percent from 2019 to 2020 and decreased staff by 55 percent during the same year. 

The amazon rainforest is burning as Bolsonaro fans the flames, from orinoco tribune.
Image 2: The Amazon rainforest burning from increased deforestation. Source: Yahoo Images

Overall, indigenous territories became more vulnerable thanks to weakening agencies and relaxed environmental regulations.  

The Secretary for Indigenous Peoples Acre State Government, Francisca Arara, continues to emphasize how critical Indigenous people are to preserving the forest and to guard and provide protection services that benefit everyone. Arara also explains that among the helpful laws that have pushed the improvement in deforestation are the jurisdictional programs such as the REDD+ program, the SISA law, and the demarcation of territories, all of which promote sustainable use of land and natural resources, and give Indigenous people autonomy and over spaces they know how to take care of best.  

What is the plan? 

After a change in leadership, Brazil proposes a fund of $125 billion to pay developing countries for the trees they protect. In other words, it is an incentive to stop deforestation. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility or T.F.F.F would be an investment-based fund, not financed by donations per se. The plan is to follow a bank’s framework: get deposits and reinvest them for a profit. It would look like this: Rich nations and big philanthropies would loan $25 billion to T.F.F.F, which would be repaid with interest.

The money invested would help attract $100 billion from private investors. Then, the fund would reinvest the $125 billion in a portfolio that could generate enough returns to repay investors. The excess would be used to pay for about 70 developing countries based on how much healthy tropical forest they still have. The countries that receive funds would be paid $4 per hectare of land with old-growth or restored trees and would incur a $400 fee for each hectare of forest lost. 

Some of the controversies or pushbacks surrounding the project are part of figuring out the program’s logistics: the risk of subjecting the funds to the swings of financial markets, the controls and regulations of how the money will be spent, etc.   

The environment as a human right 

Recognizing a healthy environment as a human right is a relatively recent development. International agreements, such as the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, acknowledge the importance of a clean and healthy environment for a good standard of living. These agreements emphasize the government’s responsibility to take action against environmental pollution and its risks. According to the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the right to health should be extended to those factors that determine good health, such as access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

However, debates continue regarding how to define and codify into law the rights of nature, as well as challenges of jurisdiction and resource availability and allocation at the local and international levels.

In 2022, the UN declared a healthy environment a human right. While this declaration is not legally binding, it reinforces the notion that a clean and sustainable environment is essential to a dignified standard of living.

A promising approach to addressing environmental degradation is using financial incentives to combat deforestation. This model means hope for developing countries that face a difficult choice between economic growth and ecological conservation. To the greediest, making money over some trees may be tempting. Initiatives like the T.F.F.F seem to be a forward-thinking funding mechanism that could be applied to fund programs and organizations worldwide to solve human rights issues. Encouraging global collaboration on environmental protection promotes the recognition of a healthy environment as a fundamental human right.