Category: Government

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. 

Arbitrary Detentions in Venezuela

Imagine being arrested in the middle of the night—no warrant, no explanation. This is the reality in Venezuela, where arbitrary detentions are used as a tool of political repression.  As noted in “Behind the Ballot: Corruption, Repression, and Hope in the 2024 Venezuelan Elections,” politically motivated arbitrary detentions have run rampant in the country, years before and after Maduro’s victory was announced on July 28th by the National Electoral Council (CNE).

What Is Arbitrary Detention?

The United Nations defines arbitrary detentions as the deprivation of personal liberty (inability to leave at will) paired with unfairness, injustice, unpredictability, and a lack of proper legal procedures. Following the definition, Amnesty International also identified the patterns of arbitrary arrest in Venezuela to be: arrest without warrants; enforced disappearance followed by arrest; the use of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; use of military tribunals; the use of special courts such as courts for terrorism cases; undue delays in investigating times and, subjection to criminal proceedings that make no progress and restrict the persons’ liberty, and retaliation as an aim of detention.

National Bolivarian Police (PNB) arrest student during demonstration
Image 1: National Bolivarian Police (PNB) arrest a student during a demonstration. Source: Yahoo Images

While protests have sparked and died down in the country, organizations such as Amnesty International, Foro Penal, and Observatorio Venezolano de Conflictividad Social have kept track of protests and detainees, documenting their experiences and the violations committed against them. Their websites contain contact forms and question banks to reach out for questions, information, and services.

The ultimate purpose of arbitrary detentions, as determined by these organizations, is to neutralize any perceived threat against the Maduro administration, where criticism is ultimately rejected, censored, and attacked. The key targets are activists, human rights defenders, protesters, and anyone suspected of opposing the government and its policies.

Inside Venezuela’s Institutions

Based on research on the correlation between stigmatization and politically motivated arbitrary detentions carried out by Amnesty International and the stories mentioned previously, both state and non-state actors are behind the detentions: SEBIN, Directorate General of Military Counterintelligence (DGMC), Local police, and armed colectivos. Since 2019, the Bolivarian National Guard (GNB) and the Directorate General of Military National Intelligence (DGCIM) continue to be the first and second main perpetrators of arbitrary detentions, third and fourth places occupied by the Special Action Forces (FAES) of the Bolivarian National Police (PNB) and by the PNB themselves.

As mentioned before, legal institutions continue to be manipulated by the misuse of anti-terrorism and public security laws to justify arrests. As a result, 33.3% of these cases were brought before ordinary courts with criminal justification, 9% before courts with special jurisdiction over terrorism, and 6.6% before courts with military jurisdiction. Lack of judicial independence is not uncommon since there is interference from the executive branch.

At least 60 people arbitrarily detained were prosecuted in special courts with jurisdiction over terrorism in 2019. What’s more, invoking the Code of Military Justice—which gives the military courts jurisdiction over military offenses not only committed by military personnel but also by civilians—has led to the persecution of hundreds of civilians before military courts. They are commonly charged with treason or rebellion. In fact, the military courts do not meet the requirements for impartiality and independence, reflecting a poor separation of powers and influence from the executive branch, according to the International Commission of Jurists.

From Protests to Prison: A Timeline of Arbitrary Detentions

2013-2019

Reports of inhumane treatment and torture of political detainees surfaced in 2013 after Maduro won the April elections, and opposition leader Henrique Capriles accused him of fraud. Protests broke out in the streets, resulting in many detentions. As a response, a civil rights group filed a complaint to the International Criminal Court in Hague to investigate violations of human rights committed against detainees.

In 2017, protests sparked again to express displeasure towards a ruling issued by the Supreme Court that made the National Assembly—the unicameral legislature of the country—powerless. As a result, 5,000 people were detained. A rights group shares how the detainees were beaten, sexually assaulted, or given electrical shocks, according to AP News.

Emirlendris Benitez is one of many arbitrary detainees. She was detained in 2018 for alleged links to a drone attack against President Nicolás Maduro. She reported torture and inhumane treatment while in custody. According to the report and a compilation of similar cases, she forcefully disappeared for a few weeks after her detention, and her pregnancy was terminated without her knowledge or consent. After being subjected to torture, she was transferred to a medical facility in July 2023 and now requires a wheelchair. Amnesty International shared her story and advocated for her immediate release in an urgent action announcement.

TOPSHOT-VENEZUELA-CRISIS-OPPOSITION-PROTEST
Image 2: A Venezuelan opposition demonstrator waves a flag at the riot police in a clash during a protest against President Nicolas Maduro, in Caracas on May 8, 2017. Source: Yahoo Images (Federico Parra /AFP/Getty Images)

 

Fear as a weapon: how arbitrary detentions terrorize Venezuelan communities

One common tactic utilized by authorities during these years is the so-called “Nights of Terror,” when officials raid and attack residential areas. Forty-seven of these were reported between April and July 2017. According to the recollection of witnesses, the incidents follow a pattern:

First, the officials (from the GNS, the CONAS, or even the SEBIN) burst into homes, breaking down front gates and security doors. They would fire indiscriminately into the houses using riot control equipment and weapons (tear gas and pellet guns). Even after the residents asked to see the search warrants, the officials continued the search without showing them. In private homes, officials shot off locks, broke down gates, destroyed property, and threatened the residents. They demanded to know the whereabouts of people who participated in protests. The raids are frequent and repeated, characterized by searches without a warrant.

Many children have been affected, as those who witnessed home raids are now scared of the National Guard officers. Not only do victims feel vulnerable as institutions collapse into corruption and impunity, but they also feel more terrified and angry than protected.

During the Covid-19 pandemic: 2020-2023

Arbitrary detentions continue amid the COVID-19 pandemic, during which NGOs documented how the state of emergency—decreed by the president—was used to crack down on dissent. The decree not only requires face masks and limits movement and certain activities, as stated by Human Rights Watch, but it also authorizes inspections at the discretion of security forces if there is reasonable suspicion that someone is violating the decree. Among the affected are human rights lawyers, journalists, and public service officials.

Journalists such as Marco Antoima or human rights lawyers like Ivan Varguez have been charged with inciting hatred and criminal activities, rebellion, or unlawful association.

International Response and What’s Next? 

Actors in the international system have taken steps to put pressure on the Maduro administration.  The United States has imposed a number of sanctions dating back to 2015. These sanctions account mostly for blocking property and assets. The European Union, on its part, approved an embargo on arms and materials in 2017 to countries that may use it for repression. In addition, between 2018 and 2021, about 30 officials were sanctioned, freezing their assets and prohibiting them from entering nations of the E.U.

The journey to justice may be frail, and the fight is far from over. You can help by supporting organizations like the ones mentioned here, sharing detainee stories, and demanding more international actions. Some ways available to support this organization include legal consultation, logistics, physical therapies, psychological therapies, transportation, medical treatments, or other services. Registration on their website is required. On the other hand, Observatorio Venezolano de Conflictividad Social has a submission box on its website for requests to contact the support staff. You can help by supporting organizations like the ones mentioned here, sharing detainee stories, and demanding more international actions.

More detailed stories are available in Foro Penal’s report on “Crackdown on Dissent, Brutality, Torture and Political Persecution in Venezuela.”

 

Election Integrity in Romania

The Romanian November presidential elections have prompted many questions about democracy and election integrity within the nation. After the elections were conducted, it was reported that independent and wildcard candidate Calin Georgescu garnered 22.94% of votes and won by plurality; however, this outcome has since been annulled and the second round of voting has been canceled. Romanian courts and intelligence have cited alleged Russian interference, questionable campaign finance practices, and inappropriate use of the social-media app TikTok as reasons for rejection. While the elections have been rescheduled, many Romanian citizens remain concerned about their country’s ability to conduct free and fair elections going forward, thus leading to apprehension regarding Romanian democracy. Similarly, the suspected Russian involvement in the election warrants further examination.  

 

Romanian voters cast their ballot during the 2024 elections. They are in a classroom set up to turn in ballots.
Image 1: Romanian citizens cast their ballots. Source: Yahoo Images

Presidential Elections

The Romanian presidential elections were held on November 24, 2024. While many well-established candidates ran for this position, the winner, having achieved 22.94% of the votes, was Calin Georgescu, an independent candidate. Prior to the election, polls estimated a 5th-place finish for Georgescu, resulting in greater shock at his victory. Similarly, his policies are at odds with many of the other candidates, as he vowed to distance the country from global organizations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Georgescu gained much of his notoriety from TikTok, where he gained popularity by attracting young voters, targeting voters’ frustrations, and spreading misinformation. He also encouraged his supporters to share his content and allegedly paid users to promote his campaign without disclosing the partnership. Since Georgescu gained a plurality, he was moved into the second round of voting, competing against second-place and popular candidate Elena Lasconi. 

On December 2nd, the Romanian courts requested that the votes be recounted; however, the reason for this was not made public. Even though a recount was underway, the courts insisted that second-round voting would continue and that no evidence suggested that Georgescu’s victory was invalid. Many citizens question the conduct used to carry out the recount, as no guidelines were publicly declared regarding how this analysis would occur. 

Calin Georgescu is surrounded by reporters and microphones, being interviewed following his first place win in the recent elections
Image 2: Calin Georgescu is interviewed following his first-place victory. Source: Yahoo Images

Annulled Results 

On December 6th, two days before the runoff election, the initial results were annulled and the second round of voting was canceled after Romanian intelligence declared that the election was undermined. Interference was found through cyber activities, most notably through TikTok, where authorities allege that the social media app gave Georgescu “preferential treatment.” Furthermore, officials suggest that fake, Russian-made accounts bolstered Georgescu’s page into popularity as it led to increased engagement and content circulation. With Romanian courts arguing that citizens have an inherent right to access accurate information about candidates, this rampant sharing of misinformation, allegedly encouraged by foreign influences, meant that this right was undermined, and thus warranted the results be annulled. Other sources of online Russian collusion were cited as reasons to cancel the election and reject its results. However, evidence and further explanation have not been revealed to the public. While Russia has ultimately rejected these claims, it has since led the European Union to enact stricter social media campaign regulations. 

Campaign finance issues were also uncovered, with authorities finding that candidates reported receiving and spending zero dollars throughout the course of the campaign trail. Officials imply the use of third-party financing, where money is sent through various accounts so that its origin remains unknown. This goes against standards set out by domestic Romanian law and the European Union, where campaign funding sources are expected to be disclosed. With these standards in place, Romanian courts argue that annulling the election results further signals its desire to uphold democratic principles along with domestic and regional legislation. 

New elections will be held on May 4th and 18th. Regardless, many citizens continue to protest for free and fair elections, as the annulment has led many citizens to question the nation’s electoral capabilities. In the meantime, President Klaus Iohannis will remain in power. As of now, it is unclear if Georgescu will be allowed to partake. 

Countless protestors rally outside government building, carrying Romanian flags
Image 3: Romanian citizens protest for free and fair elections. Source: Yahoo Images

Geopolitical Incentives

While there isn’t enough evidence to prove that Russian sources interfered in the Romanian elections, there are reasons to explain why Russia might have an interest in influencing the outcome. For starters, under a parliamentary system, the president plays a significant role in foreign policy, as they ratify international treaties, initiate or disband diplomatic missions, and communicate with foreign leaders. If Russia were to want to create warmer relations with Romania, influencing who becomes president would play an important role in achieving this goal. Another objective could be to distance the country from Western institutions, such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Trade Organization. By promoting Georgescu, a candidate who openly blames such organizations for the country’s problems, Russia can undermine trust in these institutions, ones that shame Moscow for its imperialist and authoritarian actions. Furthermore, Romania is home to critical NATO infrastructure, such as the largest NATO military base in Europe. This base strengthens NATO’s position on the Black Sea, an area where Russia poses military dominance. 

These reasons also tie into the Russia-Ukraine War. Throughout the course of this conflict, Romania has made great military contributions to support Ukraine. To achieve a victory in its imperialist conquest of Ukraine, Russia might find it beneficial to undermine Romania’s support for its neighboring country. 

Impacts on Democracy

The recent election annulment could have a great impact on the state of democracy in Romania. Though much consolidation has occurred since its commitment to democracy in 1991, the nation is still working on strengthening its democratic institutions. Because of this, the choices made by the Romanian government going forward could have long-lasting ramifications, such as weakening trust in such institutions. The Romanian courts argue that its decision was meant to align the nation further with the EU and to restore trust in its electoral process, but this has clearly not been the case. However, democracy could be further consolidated if this issue begins to be handled with transparency. By showcasing to Romanian citizens that Russian or other foreign involvement was found and terminated, it can indicate that the government had the ability to identify and remove election collusion. Furthermore, releasing intelligent reports and investigations provides necessary transparency during a political crisis that can reinforce trust in democracy and the government. Lastly, directing more resources to civil society groups can lead to the creation of safeguards against further interference. While it seems that Romania is on the cusp of democratic backsliding, by moving forward with transparency, the government can demonstrate its self-declared commitment to democracy. 

Conclusion

The recent annulment of the Romanian election results has triggered many questions regarding electoral integrity within the country. Campaign finance inconsistencies, the sharing of misinformation, and alleged Russian involvement, through both TikTok and other undisclosed sources are at the root of this political crisis. While this prompts many questions regarding the validity of other elections and overall national security, by moving forward with transparency, the government can further strengthen its democratic institutions and regain its citizens’ trust. If not, the nation could risk democratic backsliding, which is being seen in various European countries. Similarly, given its proximity to Ukraine, Romania is at risk of being caught in the crossfire if this alleged Russian collusion is found to be accurate and nothing is done to prevent it. Overall, to ensure Romania remains committed to democracy, international attention is warranted.

The Abuse of Facial Recognition Technology in the Hong Kong Protests 

Overview

Facial recognition technology has become a powerful tool in the last ten years, with uses ranging from improved security to personalized customer experiences. However, concerns about its potential for abuse have been voiced worldwide. This has not been more apparent than during Hong Kong’s pro-democracy demonstrations in 2019. The state used sophisticated monitoring techniques to suppress dissent, leaving protesters to contend with a nightmarish reality. This article will explore the use of facial recognition technology during these events, the protesters’ responses, and the broader civil liberties implications. 

Hong Kong protestor wearing a gas mask.
Image 2: Hong Kong protestor wearing a gas mask. Pexels.com

Facial Recognition Technology as a Tool for Suppression 

By analyzing a person’s facial traits with extensive databases, face recognition technology helps police identify individuals. Although the technology is supposedly employed for public safety, its darker side was brought to light during the protests in Hong Kong. During the demonstrations, the semi-autonomous province was also able to utilize facial recognition technology, which the Chinese government has been known to use to track its citizens. 

The protesters were aware that participating could result in arrests or other consequences, like being barred from future work or school opportunities. There was reason to be concerned; according to reports, officials monitored and identified participants using facial recognition cameras placed across the city. Due to fear for their safety, many were discouraged from joining the movement. 

Authorities allegedly deployed law enforcement to protest hotspots using real-time video data alongside overt monitoring. This made it possible to crack down quickly, which deterred involvement even more. The protesters’ awareness of these strategies intensified the tense environment and emphasized the dangers of criticizing their government. 

Protesters’ Countermeasures Against Surveillance 

Understanding the risks posed by facial recognition technology, protesters adopted innovative and sometimes unconventional tactics to shield their identities. Three key countermeasures stood out: 

  1. Face Coverings and Laser Pointers

Protesters used masks, goggles, and other facial coverings to obscure their identities. This method effectively counteract facial recognition technology, which relies on unobstructed views of key facial landmarks. To further disrupt surveillance, they employed handheld laser pointers aimed at cameras, which blurred the recorded footage. This tactic was particularly effective in public areas heavily monitored by government-operated cameras. 

These measures gained even more importance when the Hong Kong government enacted a ban on face coverings during protests in October 2019. The move was seen as an attempt to weaken the protesters’ ability to avoid identification, forcing them to weigh the risk of legal penalties against their need for anonymity. 

Skyscrapers in Hong Kong with student protestors camping in the road.
Image 2: Skyscrapers in Hong Kong with student protestors camping in the road. Flickr.com.
  1. Dismantling “Smart” Lampposts

Another tactic involved physically dismantling infrastructure suspected of housing surveillance tools. Protesters targeted “smart” lampposts, which were equipped with cameras and sensors capable of collecting data. In August 2019, demonstrators tore down these lampposts in Kowloon, suspecting they were being used for facial recognition and other surveillance purposes. This act of resistance underscored the deep mistrust between protesters and authorities. These lampposts became symbolic targets in the fight against surveillance. 

By removing these lampposts, protesters sent a powerful message against the encroachment of state surveillance into public spaces. The act also demonstrated the lengths ordinary citizens were willing to go to protect their freedoms in the face of technological oppression. 

  1. Umbrellas and Creative Shields

Umbrellas, a defining symbol of Hong Kong’s earlier Umbrella Movement in 2014, made a resurgence as tools for privacy. Protesters used them to block cameras from capturing their faces, forming makeshift shields during confrontations. Umbrellas were especially useful in densely monitored urban areas. This method combined practicality with a symbolic nod to the city’s history of resistance. 

Protesters also adapted other everyday items for use against surveillance. Aluminum foil, reflective materials, and even thermal blankets were used to obscure heat signatures and reflect camera images. These creative solutions highlighted the ingenuity of the demonstrators as they adapted to an ever-evolving surveillance landscape. 

The Broader Implications of Surveillance Technology 

The events in Hong Kong serve as a cautionary tale about the unchecked use of facial recognition technology. While the technology can offer benefits to law enforcement and public safety, its misuse can severely curtail civil liberties. Below are some of the broader implications: 

  1. Erosion of Privacy

The pervasive use of facial recognition technology threatens the fundamental right to privacy. In Hong Kong, protesters’ every move was potentially monitored, creating an environment of constant surveillance. Such practices set a dangerous precedent for governments worldwide, particularly in authoritarian regimes where dissent is often criminalized. 

  1. Suppression of Free Speech

The fear of identification and subsequent retaliation stifles free expression. In Hong Kong, many potential protesters chose to stay home rather than risk being identified by facial recognition systems. This undermines the principles of democracy and freedom of speech, cornerstones of any free society. 

The suppression of free speech extends beyond the immediate protest environment. Surveillance tools can be used to identify individuals who post dissenting opinions online or participate in virtual activism. The integration of online and offline surveillance poses a new level of threat to freedom of expression in the digital age. 

  1. Exportation of Surveillance Tools

China’s use of facial recognition technology in Hong Kong is part of a broader trend of exporting such tools to other countries. Nations with authoritarian tendencies may adopt similar methods, enabling the global spread of surveillance states. The Hong Kong protests highlight the urgent need for international regulation and oversight. 

Furthermore, the proliferation of surveillance technology raises questions about its commercialization. Private companies developing these tools often operate with minimal oversight, making it easier for governments to acquire and misuse them. Addressing this issue requires not only legal reforms but also greater ethical accountability within the tech industry. 

Calls for Regulation and Ethical Use 

The Hong Kong protests have amplified calls for stricter regulations governing the use of facial recognition technology. Advocates argue for a global framework that balances the benefits of the technology with protections for individual rights. Key recommendations include: 

–Transparency: Governments and organizations should disclose how facial recognition data is collected, stored, and used. 

–Accountability: Mechanisms should be in place to prevent misuse and hold violators accountable. 

–Consent: Individuals should have the right to opt out of facial recognition systems where feasible. 

–Independent Oversight: Third-party audits can ensure compliance with ethical standards. 

These measures require international cooperation and enforcement to be effective. A united global stance against the misuse of facial recognition technology can help ensure that it is used responsibly and ethically. 

Moving Forward 

The 2019 Hong Kong protests revealed the double-edged nature of facial recognition technology. While it holds promise for improving security and convenience, its misuse can have devastating consequences for individual freedoms and democratic movements. The countermeasures adopted by protesters, from face coverings to dismantling surveillance infrastructure, reflect a broader struggle for privacy and autonomy in an increasingly monitored world. 

As facial recognition technology continues to evolve, the lessons from Hong Kong serve as a reminder of the need for vigilance. By advocating for ethical practices and robust regulations, society can harness the benefits of this powerful tool while safeguarding the rights and freedoms that define us. The time to act is now, before surveillance becomes an irreversible norm. 

The Hong Kong protests are not just a localized struggle; they are a symbol of resistance against the encroachment of state power through technology. The courage of these protesters underscores the universal importance of privacy, freedom, and democracy in the face of technological oppression. 

Democratic Backsliding in Georgia

In recent months, the country of Georiga has seen an increase in anti-democratic policies and government behavior, distancing the nation from Western states and institutions and further aligning itself with Russia and its allies. While political tension has been building within the country over the past decade, the passage of new policies, such as the Foreign Agent Bill and the LGBT Propaganda Bill, has taken this to new heights, receiving domestic and global condemnation as these programs fall in line with authoritarian initiatives taken in other countries. This prefaces the October 2024 parliamentary elections, where the incumbent Georgian Dream Party received a majority of the votes. However, due to the alleged use of voter intimidation and fraud, this result has been widely contested. These events have triggered mass demonstrations throughout the nation as citizens question the state of democracy within Georgia. Due to their longstanding history with Russia and the undemocratic nature of new policies, the events in Georiga warrant monitoring to ensure democracy remains. 

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze speaks in front of Georgian and European Union flags
Image 1: Georgian Dream Party chairman and Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze speaks at an event. Source: Yahoo Images

History of the Georgian Dream Party

The policy platform and support of the Georgian Dream Party have seen a notable shift throughout its time in office. The party was founded in 2012 and quickly rose to prominence, receiving enough votes to oust the former administration later that year. During its conception, the party’s primary objectives were to improve relations with Western states and to join international organizations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, while also opening up friendly communications with Russia. Popularity for these policies led to the party gaining an absolute majority in parliament in 2016, however; support dwindled following corruption scandals. Later in this administration, a Russian lawmaker was invited to join a Georgian parliamentary meeting, a decision that was met with great upset. Largescale demonstrations erupted as citizens protested the encroachment of Russian influence in their national institutions, rejecting the potential for future Russian involvement. Regardless, the Georgian Dream party won again in 2020 as it promised to take the necessary steps to join the EU. However, this commitment was halted in 2022, when the relationship between Russia-Georgian relations has seemingly strengthened since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While numerous countries enacted economic sanctions on Russia, Georiga did not follow suit. Similarly, trade and travel have grown between the countries since 2022. 

Not only has the Georgian Dream Party strayed away from its original policy promises, but officials have also begun to spread harmful rhetoric and enact undemocratic policies. In the leadup to the October 2024 elections, the administration promoted that a “Global War Party” was the reason behind the invasion of Ukraine. This theory suggests that Western states are purposefully trying to prolong the war to weaken the Georgian state. The party has also recently passed the Foreign Agent Bill and the LGBT Propaganda Bill, both of which undermine core democratic principles. Though the Georgian Dream Party has not been free of problems, it is clear that, within the past few years, drastic changes have brought the country further away from democracy. 

Democratic Backsliding

Foreign Agent Bill

On August 1st, 2024, the Foreign Agent Bill was passed. This piece of legislation requires that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive 20% or more of their total funding from international sources must label themselves as companies “pursuing the interest of a foreign power.” Georgia is home to thousands of NGOs, with many monitoring compliance to democratic standards and ensuring there is no return to its communist past. It is estimated that 90% of NGOs would fall under this category, thus undermining the validity of countless institutions and organizations. Furthermore, this bill primarily targets civil society and media organizations. Businesses are exempt from receiving this label, regardless of the percentage of foreign funding. While the Georgian government claims that this policy promotes transparency, the rhetoric that officials use when talking about NGOs suggests otherwise. In a speech given in April 2024, a prominent political figure explained how NGOs “do not love their country or their people because they do not really consider them to be their own”. Between the language used when discussing NGOs and the timing of the bill, many speculate that the purpose of this legislation is to undermine the credibility of opposition and pro-democracy groups, being enacted only 3 months before the 2024 elections. 

LGBTQ+ advocates protest for their rights, with one woman wearing a pride flag, and a man holding a poster saying how he wants his country back
Image 2: LGBTQ+ advocates protest against Georgian policies. Source: Yahoo Images

LGBT Propaganda Law

Passed into law only one month after the foreign agent bill, the LGBT Propaganda Law seeks extreme measures to ensure the protection of heterosexuality. Not only does it codify marriage between men and women, but it also bans LGBTQ+ members from adopting children, limits their representation in media, and monitors community events. Furthermore, it overrides anti-discrimination hiring policies and prohibits gender reassignment surgery. The implementation of this bill faced local and international condemnation. Within Georgia, opposition parties criticized the inherent discrimination at the core of the legislation. Similarly, the European Union warns that this legislation threatens the nation’s chances of becoming a member state. The combination of both these bills has raised questions regarding Georgia’s alliances, with many pointing out how these laws signal alignment with Russia over Western powers. 

October 2024 Parliamentary Elections 

On October 26, 2024, Georgia held its parliamentary elections, where Georgian Dream, the long-standing incumbent party, won a majority. However, these results have been widely contested, with the nation’s own president, Salome Zurabishvili, refusing to recognize the validity of the results. One reason backing these claims is the alleged use of voter intimidation tactics by the Georgian Dream party. Voters discuss cameras monitoring polling booths and the display of a Georgian Dream politician presenting a speech being aired directly outside polling stations. The passing of the Foreign Agent Bill has also warranted concerns as this legislation impacted the credibility of election monitoring organizations and groups ensuring democratic compliance. Furthermore, many changes were made to the electoral system in the months before the election, with this being the first election where parties must receive 5% of the vote to have representation in the parliament, and the first election using an electric ballot counting system. Regardless of these questions surrounding the validity of the election, domestic courts have refused to annul the results or to initiate a recount. Despite its alleged election rigging, the Georgian Dream Party still declares itself victorious. It has also declared a halt to its efforts to join the European Union, causing even more discontent amongst the population. 

A European Union, a Georgian, and a Ukrainian flag are held up in front of a Georgian government building among a large group of protesters
Image 3: Georgians protest and fight for their inclusion into the European Union. Source: Yahoo Images

Protests and Government Responses

These unaddressed concerns triggered a nationwide uproar, with protests fighting for democracy throughout the country. Beginning in early November, these protests demanded that new elections be held in compliance with democratic standards. President Zurabishvili has supported these efforts, protesting alongside Georgian citizens. These protests have continued since the election. Georgian police have reacted with force, unleashing tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets on peaceful protestors. Arrested over 20 individuals. The government has also enacted legislation that imposes restrictions on protestors, such as fining those caught hanging posters and stickers in public areas. These acts have also granted Georgian police the ability to proactively detain individuals they suspect will violate these limitations. While Georgian citizens continue to fight for and protect their democracy, it is clear that the current administration is taking steps to silence these voices.  

Conclusion

Georgia is experiencing a period of democratic backsliding as the current administration passes authoritarian-leaning legislation and distances itself from Western powers. Though it has never been void of issues, Georgian democracy has drastically weakened in the past few months, resulting in a contested election that reinstated power in the hands of the Georgian Dream Party. Legislation enacted throughout 2024 has also reduced the likelihood that Georgia will be able to join the EU. This backsliding follows a similar trend toward authoritarianism throughout Europe, seen in countries such as Hungary, Romania, Austria, and Poland, and raises concerns over a regional and global weakening of democracy. Similarly, Georgia’s previous relations with Russia make this issue more pressing and in demand of attention.