Right to Health and Public Health – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Navigating the Impact of NIH Cancer Research Funding Cuts

In early 2025, the U.S. biomedical research community faced significant changes due to substantial reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), particularly affecting cancer research. These developments have sparked widespread discussion among scientists, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public. This blog will aim to provide a balanced examination of the recent NIH funding cuts, their implications for cancer research, and the broader context surrounding these decisions.

Understanding the NIH Funding Reductions

The NIH, a cornerstone of U.S. medical research, has traditionally supported a vast array of studies, including those focused on cancer. In 2025, the administration implemented significant budgetary changes, notably reducing indirect cost reimbursements for research institutions from an average of 60% to a capped rate of 15%. Indirect costs cover essential expenses such as facility maintenance, utilities, and administrative support, which are crucial for the everyday operations of research labs.

These adjustments were part of a broader initiative led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk, aiming to streamline federal spending. The administration projected that these cuts would save approximately $4 billion annually. While fiscal responsibility is important, the abrupt nature of these changes has raised questions about the potential risks to the nation’s biomedical infrastructure.

Implications for Cancer Research

Cancer research is an area where sustained investment has historically led to life-saving innovations. Advances in immunotherapy, targeted drug therapies, and precision medicine have dramatically improved survival rates for several types of cancer. However, these breakthroughs result from years of incremental research, often supported by NIH grants.

The reductions in NIH support have led to concerns about the future of ongoing studies, the initiation of new projects, and the overall momentum in the fight against cancer. Institutions like the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) have expressed apprehension that these funding cuts could delay the development of new therapies and hinder access to clinical trials, especially in underserved communities. Moreover, the potential slowdown in research progress raises concerns about the long-term impact on patient outcomes and the country’s ability to maintain its leadership in biomedical innovation.

Additionally, early-phase research, which often carries the highest risk but also the most potential for groundbreaking discoveries, is especially vulnerable to funding cuts. Many of these projects rely on public funding because they cannot have private investment yet. Without sufficient support, promising leads may never get the chance to be explored.

Economic and Workforce Considerations

Beyond the scientific implications, the funding reductions have economic ramifications. Research institutions across the country rely on NIH grants not only for scientific purposes but also as a large source of employment. The cuts have led to hiring freezes, layoffs, and a general sense of uncertainty within the research community.

Early-career scientists, in particular, face challenges in securing positions and funding, potentially leading to a decline in talent ranging from academics to industry or even other sectors. This shift could have long-term effects on the innovation pipeline and the diversity of research perspectives. The potential loss of highly trained researchers might also compromise the quality of mentorship available to future generations of scientists.

Legal and Political Responses

The funding changes have prompted legal actions and political debates. A coalition of 22 states filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the abrupt changes to NIH funding policies could jeopardize critical research and violate administrative procedures.

In Congress, reactions have been mixed. Some lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to the cuts, emphasizing the importance of sustained investment in medical research. Others have supported the administration’s efforts to reduce federal spending, highlighting the need for fiscal responsibility. The political discourse that’s happening reflects a broader national conversation about the balance between economic efficiency and public investment in science.

People researching in a lab — Image 2: Researchers working in a science lab. Source: Yahoo! Images

International Context and Competitiveness

Another dimension of the funding debate involves the global landscape of cancer research. The United States has long been a leader in biomedical innovation, attracting top talent from around the world. However, as other countries increase their investments in science and technology, funding instability in the U.S. could lead to a shift in the global research balance.

Nations like China, Germany, and South Korea have been expanding their research funding, particularly in emerging areas like gene editing and personalized medicine. Reduced NIH funding could make the U.S. less competitive in these fields, potentially leading to fewer international collaborations and a decline in scientific influence.

Historical Precedents and Lessons

This is not the first time NIH funding has faced uncertainty. Historical data shows that flat or declining NIH budgets have correlated with decreased research productivity and fewer grant applications being funded. During the budget sequestration of 2013, many research projects were delayed or canceled, and similar consequences are anticipated in the wake of the 2025 cuts.

However, the scientific community has also shown resilience. Philanthropic organizations, private foundations, and public-private partnerships have started stepping in to fill funding gaps. For example, the Cancer Moonshot initiative, launched in 2016, allowed both government and private resources to accelerate research. Examples like this may become increasingly important in the future.

Patient Perspectives and Public Engagement

From the perspective of patients and advocacy groups, the funding cuts represent not just a policy shift but a personal concern. Many patients rely on cutting-edge treatments developed through NIH-supported research. Delays in trials or the discontinuation of research programs could directly impact access to new therapies.

Public engagement has become a critical component of the response to the cuts. Grassroots campaigns, petitions, and awareness events have emerged to advocate for restored funding. Organizations like the American Cancer Society and Stand Up To Cancer have mobilized supporters to contact legislators and raise public awareness about the stakes involved.

Looking Ahead: Balancing Efficiency and Innovation

The recent NIH funding cuts show the complex interplay between government policy and scientific advancement. While efforts to streamline government spending are a legitimate aspect of public administration, it’s essential to consider the possible long-term consequences of these actions on critical areas like cancer research.

As the nation navigates these changes, continuing conversations among stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, patients, and the public, is necessary to ensure that the U.S. continues encouraging innovation while maintaining fiscal prudence. Collaborative funding models, greater transparency in policy decisions, and increased support for early-career researchers should ideally all play a role in adapting to the new funding landscape.

Ultimately, the goal should be to ensure that scientific progress continues and that the U.S. remains a major player in cancer research and healthcare innovation.

Greenland is Melting! Temperatures are Sweltering!

Greenland, home to the world’s second-largest ice sheet, is rapidly losing its ice. This isn’t just a faraway problem for scientists to worry about—it’s a global issue that affects all of us. But why is this happening, and what does it mean? Let’s break it down.

An image of greenland with no snow — Image 1: The snowless, changing landscape of Greenland. Source: Yahoo Images.

Why Is Greenland’s Ice Melting?

Greenland’s ice sheet covers about 80% of the country. It’s so big that if it melted completely, sea levels around the world would rise by about 7.4 meters (24 feet). Over the last few decades, temperatures in the Arctic have been rising twice as fast as the global average. Warmer air melts the ice from above, while warmer ocean water melts it from below. These processes are speeding up, causing Greenland to lose billions of tons of ice yearly.

One key concept in understanding the melting ice is albedo. Albedo is a measure of how much sunlight a surface reflects. Think about it this way:

Ice and snow are bright and white, reflecting most sunlight back into space and cooling the planet.
Darker surfaces like ocean water or bare ground absorb more sunlight, causing them to heat up.

As Greenland’s ice melts, it exposes darker surfaces, which absorb more heat. This causes even more ice to melt—a dangerous feedback loop. To be specific, Greenland is losing, on average, 269 billion metric tons of ice annually.

The merciless albedo feedback loop. The loop proceeds as follows: "Melting of sea ice" --> "Lowered albedo" --> "Increase in absorbed sunlight" --> "Melting of sea ice" — Image 2: The merciless albedo feedback loop. Source: Yahoo Images.

The formation of an ice sheet isn’t random; it depends on Earth’s geography and climate. The movement of Earth’s continents, known as continental drift, plays a key role in ice sheet formation. Continents near the poles (like Greenland and Antarctica) are ideal because they receive less sunlight, creating cooler conditions. The most essential requirement for an ice sheet to grow is cool summer temperatures. Snow that falls during winter must not melt entirely during the summer. Instead, it compacts and builds up over thousands of years, forming thick layers of ice.

How Does This Affect Climate Change?

The melting ice in Greenland contributes to climate change in several ways:

Rising Sea Levels. When ice sheets melt, water flows into the ocean, significantly elevating sea levels. This poses a direct threat to coastal communities worldwide, putting them at risk of flooding and erosion.

Disrupted Ocean Currents. Melting ice adds massive amounts of freshwater to the salty ocean, disrupting critical ocean currents like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which helps regulate the Earth’s climate. If these currents slow down, they could lead to more extreme weather patterns, such as harsher winters in some places and stronger hurricanes in others.

More Greenhouse Gases. Melting ice can release trapped greenhouse gases, like methane, from the frozen ground beneath it (called permafrost). These gases contribute to further warming, making the problem even worse.

Oceans are Rising! How are people surviving?

While Greenland may seem far away, its melting ice affects everyone. Rising sea levels threaten millions of people living in coastal cities, from Miami to Mumbai. Disrupted weather patterns can lead to more severe storms, droughts, and heatwaves, which impact food supplies and economies. We are all part of this global community, and we all share the consequences of climate change.

The melting of Greenland’s ice sheet is not just an environmental issue—it’s a human rights issue. Climate change, driven by the loss of ice sheets and rising global temperatures, threatens people’s right to life, health, food, water, and security. Communities around the world, particularly those in coastal and marginalized areas, are already experiencing the devastating consequences.

The United Nations recognizes climate change as a human rights issue because it disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. As the ice melts, coastal communities are being swallowed by the sea. Small island nations like Tuvalu and the Maldives are at risk of disappearing. Millions of people in low-lying regions (Bangladesh, Florida, Louisiana) could be displaced, creating climate refugees who have nowhere to go.

Even with ambitious climate change policies like the Paris Agreement, sea levels are projected to rise between 20 to 60 cm (7.8 to 23.6 inches) by 2100. This rise poses a significant threat to coastal communities, as up to 216 million people (2.6% of the earth’s population) currently live on land that will be below sea level or experience regular flooding by the end of the century.

A person holding up a sign that says "Climate Change = More Climate Refugees" — Image 3: Climate change advocates. Source: Yahoo Images.

Greenhouse gases trap heat and keep the planet warm. The most common are carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Ozone (O3), and water. Without them, Earth would be too cold for humans and most life to survive, but with too much, we are slowly roasting the planet. This raises an ethical dilemma: Are we morally obligated to rehome climate refugees? If giving up air conditioning could save thousands of lives, should people’s basic needs for food and shelter outweigh our desire for convenience?

Wealthy countries and corporations have contributed the most to climate change, yet poorer nations are more likely to bear the brunt of the damage. Those with fewer resources—marginalized communities, Indigenous groups, and low-income families—struggle the most to adapt and recover.

The biggest contributors to global emissions are China, the United States, and India, together responsible for 42.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. alone accounts for 13.5% of global emissions, making it the world’s second-largest carbon emitter. If the U.S. is responsible for 13.5% of lost islander homes, should we also be 13.5% responsible for their survival? Should we take action even if no other country accepts accountability? Even if it requires more than what we are “technically” obligated to do?

What Can We Do?

The good news is that there are solutions. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the most essential step. This means using cleaner energy sources like wind and solar, improving energy efficiency, and protecting forests. On an individual level, even small actions make a difference—using less energy, advocating for climate policies, and spreading awareness. One of the most powerful things you can do is start a conversation. Simply talking about climate change can introduce new ideas and inspire action.

Greenland’s melting ice may seem far away, but its impact is a stark reminder that we are all connected. If we act now, we can protect our planet and future generations. The question is not whether we can make a difference but whether we will.

Karoshi: The Problems with Japan’s Work Culture

A colorful, busy street in Osaka, Japan. — Image 1: Dotonbori Street in Osaka, Japan, Source: Yahoo Images

Japan is famous for its blend of traditional and modern customs, rich culture, and revolutionized technologies. The country has drawn in millions of foreign nationals for its high quality of life, safety, and efficient public transport—but perhaps especially for its employment opportunities.

About 3% of Japan’s workforce consists of foreign workers, having quadrupled in the past 15 years to 2.05 million. On the other hand, Japan’s population has been shrinking, with a steadily declining birth rate and rapid aging. There are many proposed causes for this crisis, including dwindling marriage rates, but it is worth noting the socioeconomic pressures that stem from high living costs, unfavorable job prospects, and a rigid corporate environment.

The labor shortage that Japan faces poses a major threat to its economy—and its historically unforgiving work culture likely plays a big role.

Work Culture in Japan

Work is a highly valued aspect of life in Japan, and with it comes the concept of company loyalty. This can be demonstrated by working many hours overtime; these hours are expected and sometimes even contracted. According to data by Japan’s health ministry, 10.1% of men and 4.2% of women worked over sixty hours a week in 2022.

Tim Craig, a researcher of Japanese culture, said that there is a certain social pressure associated with working overtime hours: “If they go home early, then their colleagues will (a) look askance at them, and (b) have to work more to cover for them. Either way, it’s not a good feeling.”

While Japan’s 2018 Workstyle Reform Act outlawed working more than 45 hours of overtime in a single month, it’s not uncommon for companies to force their employees to hide their true working hours or for employees to even do so of their own accord.

Additionally, only 7% of companies give their employees the legally mandated one day off per week. Japan has been trying to push a four-day work week since 2021, but it will take much more to entirely dismantle the deep-rooted idea that employees must give all of themselves to their company in order to thrive—Panasonic, one of the country’s leading companies, offered the option to 63,000 employees, and only 150 opted in.

A man asleep in a chair in an empty subway stop. — Image 2: A man asleep in a subway station, Source: Yahoo Images

Some companies employ shady business practices, operating what lawyers and academics call a “bait-and-switch” policy: employers will advertise a seemingly normal full-time position with reasonable working hours. The prospective employee is then offered a non-regular contract with longer hours and no overtime pay. If the employee refuses the job, companies might tell them that they will be given regular contracts after around six months. Younger applicants and women are particularly vulnerable due to a lack of experience or settling while trying to re-enter the workforce.

Another common issue is power harassment, which a reported third of the workforce has experienced. This is a common form of workplace harassment that has garnered attention across the past several decades and specifically involves someone in a higher position of power bullying a lower-ranking employee.

In 2020, the Power Harassment Prevention Act took effect, which outlines six types of power harassment, requires companies to take proper action against allegations of harassment, and ensures that workers aren’t dismissed for submitting complaints. However, Nikkei Asia reported in 2021 that complaints about workplace abuse had climbed to 88,000 cases a year, more than tripling in the past 15 years.

While these circumstances are not specific to Japan, they have certainly contributed to a phenomenon that was first identified there: karoshi, or death by overworking.

The History of Karoshi

Karoshi was first recognized in the 1970s and is a sociomedical term used to refer to fatalities or disabilities caused by cardiovascular attacks that are ultimately work-related. This includes strokes, cardiac arrest, and myocardial infarctions. The International Labour Organization’s case study into the phenomenon outlines the following typical case of karoshi: “Mr. A worked at a major snack food processing company for as long as 110 hours a week (not a month) and died from a heart attack at the age of 34. His death was approved as work-related by the Labour Standards Office.”

Related to karoshi is karojisatsu, which is suicide from overwork and stressful working conditions. This issue became prominent in the late 1980s—an economic recession during that decade forced employees who had managed to keep their jobs to work harder for longer hours to compensate.

Factors like repetitive tasks, interpersonal conflicts, inadequate rewards, employment insecurity, inability to meet company goals, forced resignation, and bullying create a psychological burden that has led countless workers to take their own lives. Japan’s white paper report revealed that in 2022, 2,968 people died by suicide linked to karoshi, an increase from 1,935 in 2021.

Hiroshi Kawahito, a workplace accident lawyer, told the Pulitzer Center in 2023 that he has worked on around 1,000 cases of karoshi during a 45-year-period, and despite repeated efforts by the Japanese government to combat suicide rates, he has not identified a significant change in the number of cases.

A group of Japanese citizens protesting karoshi on a street in Tokyo. — Image 3: A “No More Karoshi” protest in Tokyo in 2018, Source: Yahoo Images

He did note two concerning shifts over the course of his career: that karoshi-related suicide has become more common than cardiovascular attack, and that about 20% of his cases are now women, as they have begun to enter the workforce and experience sexual harassment at an overwhelming rate compared to their male counterparts.

A recent case of Kawahito’s from September 2023 involves the suicide of a 25-year-old actress from the musical theater company Takarazuka Revue, who was overworked and bullied by senior members. She logged a total of 437 hours in the final month of her life, of which 277 were overtime.

According to Kawahito, the actress worked without any days off for a month and a half and barely slept more than a few hours a night. Two years earlier, she suffered burns when a senior member pressed a hair iron against her forehead and faced immense pressure from the company. Kawahito claimed that “excessive work and power harassment damaged her physical and mental health, leading to her suicide.”

Governmental Response

Suicide was considered a taboo topic in Japan for decades; families affected were left with no outlet to cope with their loss. However, in 2006, more than 100,000 signatures were collected to push for legislation on suicide prevention, which led to The Basic Act of Suicide Countermeasures that went into effect the same year.

This act takes a three-pronged approach: social systems, local cooperation, and personal support creating relevant laws like the Act on Mental Health and Welfare. It provides support via relevant agencies at local and community levels, including hotlines and consultation services.

In 2016, the Basic Act was amended to require all prefectures and municipalities to establish local suicide prevention plans based on regional data collected by the National Police Agency. The General Principles of the Basic Act are also updated every five years to reflect current trends in suicide data.

The Work Style Reform Act of 2018 aims to promote a healthier work environment, setting overtime limits and establishing paid annual leave, as well as offering free consulting services and subsidies from the labor ministry. This has motivated the push for the four-day workweek, part of the ministry’s “innovating how we work” campaign.

Change might happen slowly in a society where values surrounding dedication and sacrifice are so deeply ingrained in its working population, but it is happening; between 2006 and 2022, the suicide rate has fallen by more than 35%. Efforts by the government to deter karoshi and combat the falling birth rate are in full swing and hope for a better future in Japan is still on the horizon.

The Treatment of People with Disabilities in Institutional Care Settings in Brazil

A flag of Brazil flowing in the wind — Image 1: Flag of Brazil. Source: Yahoo! Images

Overview of the Issue

In Brazil, thousands of children and adults with disabilities are confined to institutions for people with disabilities, facing widespread neglect, abuse, and isolation. Designed ostensibly to provide care, many of these institutions have instead devolved into detention centers where individuals are deprived of their autonomy and dignity. Reports from Human Rights Watch reveal the harrowing conditions experienced by people with disabilities in these facilities, underscoring the urgent need for systemic reform to safeguard their basic rights. 

One relevant case is that of Leonardo, a 25-year-old man with muscular dystrophy who has lived in a residential institution since he was 15. His mother, unable to care for him due to a lack of adequate support, was left with little to no choice. Like many others, Leonardo shares cramped quarters with multiple residents, with minimal privacy or control over his daily life. There are very few meaningful activities available for him to partake in, and he has seemingly no apparent opportunity to participate in society as an autonomous individual, mirroring the experiences of countless other residents across Brazil’s institutions. 

Causes of Institutionalization  of the Care for People with Disabilities

The institutionalization of the care for individuals with disabilities in Brazil is shown through several interrelated systemic issues. First, the lack of adequate support for families plays a significant role. The government offers limited resources, and financial assistance programs, such as the Benefício de Prestação Continuada (BPC), often fail to fully meet the comprehensive needs of individuals with disabilities, which include therapy, assistive devices, and accessible housing. Without meaningful support systems, families may feel they have no alternative but to rely on institutional care. 

Brazil’s legal and systemic framework also plays a crucial role. Guardianship laws that remove legal capacity from individuals with disabilities mean that many residents in institutions cannot consent to their placement. This lack of autonomy, combined with the stigma of ableism, creates an environment where people with disabilities are treated as passive recipients of care rather than individuals who should have rights and preferences. Public perception remains rooted in ableist attitudes, which continue to limit access to inclusive services and resources.  

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these disparities, intensifying existing challenges for people with disabilities in Brazil’s institutional care settings. This revealed vulnerabilities in both healthcare access and living conditions. Individuals with disabilities were disproportionately affected by the virus due to several factors, including pre-existing health conditions, limited access to adequate healthcare, and cramped, unsanitary living environments within institutions. These conditions not only increased infection rates but also made it difficult to implement preventive measures, such as social distancing and proper sanitation.  

Image 2: Hospital Beds. Source: Yahoo! Images

Problems Within Institutions for People with Disabilities

The institutional care setting for People with Disabilities in Brazil fails to meet even the most basic standards of dignity and human rights. Living conditions in many of these institutions are deplorable. Reports from Human Rights Watch describe facilities that resemble prisons more than care centers. Physical restraints, such as tying residents to beds or sedating them, are surprisingly common. Such practices not only prevent individuals from engaging in any form of meaningful activity, but also contribute to a host of physical and psychological traumas. 

Isolation is another significant, impactful issue. Many residents are confined to their beds or rooms for extended periods, with little to no engagement in social interaction or personal development. Children, specifically, suffer due to the lack of educational and recreational activities, which then stunts their intellectual and emotional growth. This isolation leads to further stigmatization and marginalization, unfortunately reinforcing the perception that people with disabilities are separate from society and should be hidden from view, whether intentionally or not. 

The lack of oversight and enforcement of existing laws allows for egregious human rights abuses to go unchecked. In many cases, individuals are institutionalized unlawfully, deprived of family connections, and subjected to a lifetime of neglect. Children who enter these institutions often lose contact with their families permanently, which can lead to long-term emotional trauma and a deep sense of abandonment. 

Access to healthcare for people with disabilities in Brazil also remains alarmingly inadequate. Despite the legal frameworks designed to protect their rights, physical and financial barriers to healthcare still exist, compounded by a lack of training among healthcare providers to address the specific needs of people with disabilities. These gaps contribute to a high incidence of preventable health complications and reduced life expectancy.  

Efforts Toward Reform 

While Brazil has established a strong legal framework for the rights of people with disabilities, including the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the enactment of the 2016 Law on Inclusion, the enforcement and practical implementation of these laws remain lacking in change. Legal rights exist on paper, but without mechanisms to enforce them, individuals with disabilities continue to suffer abuse, neglect, and loss of their freedoms. 

United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and many advocacy organizations have called on the Brazilian government to transition from institutional care to community-based services that prioritize individual autonomy and family support. These efforts encourage the development of small, inclusive residences and group homes to reduce the dependence on large-scale institutions. Although some of these programs have been started up, they fall short of ensuring true independence and often lack the necessary resources to fully support residents in their transition to independent living. 

Efforts to improve healthcare access are underway, focusing on providing disability-specific training to healthcare providers and addressing financial and physical accessibility challenges. These interventions are essential to improving the health outcomes of individuals with disabilities and to fostering an inclusive healthcare environment that treats people with disabilities as valued members of society. 

Looking Ahead 

The treatment of people with disabilities in institutional care settings in Brazil reveals a profound humanitarian crisis that requires focused attention. The combination of insufficient support systems, societal stigma, and legal challenges results in an environment where individuals with disabilities are denied their rights, autonomy, and dignity. While Brazil has made some strides toward recognizing and enshrining the rights of individuals with disabilities, significant gaps remain in the enforcement of these rights and in the availability of community-based alternatives to institutionalization. 

Addressing these issues calls for a multifaceted approach, including policy reform, enhanced support for families, and the development of inclusive, community-based care. By prioritizing the rights and voices of individuals with disabilities, Brazil can move toward a more just and humane society where all individuals are treated with respect, dignity, and equal opportunity. 

Geography’s Facilitation of Injustice

In studying human rights, it is important to consider the factors that play a role in facilitating injustices. What makes it so easy for governments to displace thousands of people or allow its citizens to live among and ingest chemical waste for decades at a time? I have seen too many instances that could have been avoided, so let’s look at why they were not. This week, I took a deep dive into the geographical landscapes of injustice across the globe and how they play a role in facilitating nation’s violations of human rights practice.

Sudan and the Merowe Dam

My last post focused heavily on South Sudan and how the absence of positive peace practices made way for an influx of human rights violations. After further research, I found that Sudan has a history of these violations which are made more frequent by both the sociological and geographical makeup of the landscape. A study performed in 2013 by Kleinitz and Näser looks at the political narrative versus the narrative told by those on the ground, and the contradictions are astounding. The geographical landscapes in South Sudan have allowed for the government to marginalize and violate certain groups’ human rights, and despite the constant outcry for emphasis on positive change through NGOs like Amnesty International, the instances persist.

In the late 1980s, the Sudanese government devised a plan to construct the fourth of a multi-dam project, the Merowe Dam, along the Nile River meant to expand Sudan’s power grid, pushing promises of sustainability to all citizens. Despite financial issues, Sudanese officials rallied monetary support from outside countries, mainly China, and construction began in the early 2000s. Although the dam was meant to be a major technological advancement, the initiative received major pushback from locals who had been settled along the edge of the dam for decades. An effort and fight to preserve their cultural and physical heritage ensued. The government was not swayed. After years of protest met with violent and at times fatal state oppression, tens of thousands of Sudanese began to be forcibly displaced with thousands being killed in the process.

Geography cannot be ignored in this case. As the study states, those that were settled by the edge of the damn were communities of lower-class, peasants and farmers of the Sudanese society who had settled along the Nile decades before to be close to natural resources as agriculture was their main source of livelihood. As the resettlement continued, Sudanese settled along the site of the new Merowe Dam were moved to areas with little or no sanitation, the government decided what was to be salvaged and their homelands were flooded for a project that would ultimately experience several failures.

Regardless of what the reality of the situation was on the ground, the Sudanese government continued to push the Merowe Dam project as a success for the nation. Narratives of the aftermath and on the effects of the dam are strongly led by officials on the socioeconomic level that allows them to live downstream (the area of the Nile unaffected by the negative outcomes of the resettlement). The story is all too familiar and can be found in other instances of time and place across the globe.

The Bhopal Gas Disaster

Another unfortunate but applicable example of geography facilitating human rights violations is the Bhopal disaster that occurred in India the night of December 2^nd, 1984. This case is devastating and never receives the coverage it deserves. Bhopal, like many other cities, is divvied up geographically by caste and class, which proved to be extremely unfortunate for some on the night of December 2^nd. More than 40 tons of methyl isocyanate, a deadly gas, leaked into the city of Bhopal that night from a nearby Union Carbide factory. Coincidentally, the heavy gas settled in the city and had a deadly effect on lower-class citizens living in the valleys of Bhopal while upper-class citizens literally at a higher altitude slept through the night, most unaware that anything had taken place. At first glance, the case of the Bhopal disaster looks like a simple accident, but a closer look at the socioeconomic makeup of the city and continued violations tells us a different story.

I had the opportunity to talk with a survivor of the Bhopal disaster, Bixit Di, via Zoom during a Human Rights course this semester and find out more about how families were and still are being treated on the ground all these decades later. Those who lost loved ones and experience lifelong medical issues because of the Bhopal disaster are still receiving limited healthcare or acknowledgement from the government that knowingly put them in harm’s way. During a mute effort to relocate survivors of the disaster, Indian government offered inexpensive land plots to survivors and their families, knowingly exposing them to both soil and water reservoirs contaminated by the seepage of methyl isocyanide into the surrounding area. The fight for justice is still ongoing today.

Birmingham Redlining

Now let’s look at our city. Are geographical landscapes shaping any of the rights violations we see today or in the past? Of course! I have stated that it’s a global issue, so let’s take the time to sweep in front of our own front doors for once. The history of Birmingham’s geography is quite complex and heavily racially charged. In the 1930s, the United States began the illegal practice of Redlining (a term that refers to mortgage companies denying loans for homes in lower class or POC neighborhoods). Redlining was originally put in place to keep African Americans and other minorities from home ownership, but the practice had lasting effects on the geography of our city that can still be seen today.

Map of Redlined neighborhoods in Birmingham, AL, 1930

Areas like Collegeville, Tarrant, Eastlake, Ensley and Mason City are at the heart of locations for Redlined neighborhoods during the 1930s. All these neighborhoods have a few things in common: they are majority POC, close vicinity to an industrial plant (whether active or inactive), and a recurrence of low income, marginalized households. The Environmental protection groups have issued several cases against Bluestone Coke, a company that has for years, despite inoperable ovens, been leaking toxic waste into the soil and waterways of these neighborhoods. Comparisons can be found across these cases both in the lack of attention they are receiving on a global scale as well as how geography facilitates the violation of human rights specifically as it pertains to articles 3, 6, 7, 22 and 25.

Geography and landscapes have been used in the past and are unfortunately continuing to have negative effects in the present that actively violate citizen’s rights as listed in the UDHR. Some examples I have covered from around the globe include methods of forced resettlement, environmental injustice and health hazards as well as discrimination and lack of protection from government for marginalized groups. By acknowledging both the past and present effects of these landscapes and the power that they represent, small moves can be made toward big change starting in cities like ours.

American Psychiatric Abuses: Residential Treatment Facilities

Content warning: this blog will include mentions of child abuse, child self-harm, child suicide, and child sexual abuse.

Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities (PRTFs) are in-patient institutions that provide inpatient psychiatric care to people under the age of 21. They are a common form of short-term psychiatric care for young people. Children do not choose to be committed to these facilities, and they do not want to be. Two children said they were being treated like animals. Many said, “I don’t feel safe.”

Physical Abuse

Children in PRTFs are extremely vulnerable due to both psychiatric issues and the nature of living in institutionalized care. Facilities are often understaffed, leading to minimal supervision and increased opportunities for abuse – by staff and other children.

Staff members at PRTFs have frequent opportunities to abuse their charges. A staff member at Cumberland Hospital in Virginia “poured scalding water on a non-verbal 16-year-old.” An 11-year-old boy from Arkansas was pushed down, had his hair pulled, and had a staff member place her foot in his back. A staff member at Devereaux Brandywine in Pennsylvania was found guilty of assault after she “punched and kicked a 14-year-old in the head, face, and body until the child was unconscious.” In December 2023, a staff member at a facility in Arkansas told a police officer, “I went in there, and I basically twisted his ear real hard in order to get him off the bed, which we’re not supposed to touch them.” A staffer at a facility in South Carolina “hit the child twice, including punching the child in the head.” At a Devereux facility in Viera, Florida, a staff member hit a boy on his neck, leaving marks. It is sad that state governments pay pay thousands of dollars daily for children to be abused by their caretakers.

Further, due to apathy and unawareness from staff, children are also able to abuse other children in PRTFs. At Riverside Hospital in Virginia, a child was “repeatedly stabbed by another child.” At North Star Behavioral Health in Alaska, after two children were accidentally placed in seclusion together, one child gave the other a bloody nose. At the same Alaska facility, a child was “punched, slapped in the eye, and kicked by other children.”

None of these instances of abuse were reported to the children’s guardians in a timely manner. Some parents were never notified.

Sexual Abuse

A caregiver at Lighthouse Care Center of Augusta, in Augusta, Georgia, was arrested and convicted of child molestation. An employee at a facility in Alabama was sentenced after sexually abusing a 13-year-old boy she should have been caring for. A man working at a facility in Chicago was charged with three counts after sexually assaulting minors in his care. A Utah man pled guilty to sexually abusing three male students at a residential school he worked at.

Staff members also allow sexual abuse to occur between children. At Devereux Brandywine in Pennsylvania, a 13-year-old boy asked not to be placed in a room with an older boy he was afraid of. They were placed as roommates, and “the older boy forced the younger child to perform oral sex on him on three successive nights in a walk-in closet.” This is one of many equally disturbing instances of staff enabling sexual abuse at facilities. One facility in New Mexico closed partially due to “the unchecked spread of HIV among patients” – something that brings to mind the hepatitis experiments of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s at Willowbrook State School, an infamous institution in New York.

Image 2: A postcard from Willowbrook State School. Source: Yahoo Images

Neglect and Unsafe Environments

Staff at PRTFs are often unable or unwilling to prevent children from harming themselves. Disability Rights Arkansas, the Protection & Advocacy Agency for Arkansas, reported that one girl “still had access to items to cut her arms. There were numerous new scars over her old scars.” The staff did not care. Another child at the same facility said that she had “used the second stall [with cracked and sharp shower tiles] to self-harm.” The staff did not care. If they had, the children in their care would be safe. A child at Palmetto Pines Behavioral Health in South Carolina “barricaded themselves inside of his suicide watch room…[and] used the plastics piece to cut his neck in an attempt to kill himself, but it was not sharp enough.” The staff did not care. A child at Provo Canyon School in Utah “caused personal injury during self-harm, with wounds that were one and two inches in length… through the fatty tissue.” At Oak Plains Academy in Tennessee, two 15-year-olds overdosed on Benadryl. The mother of one of them said, “I’ll never see her again; I just want justice for her; I just want her story told. And I want – I never want this to happen again to anyone.”

Image 3: A box of Benadryl. Source: Yahoo Images

Minority Children

Children who are also members of minoritized groups, especially children of color and LGBTQIA+ children, have even greater difficulties in PRTFs.

According to a Senate report, “[T]he longer an RTF stay, the longer a child is at risk of exposure to harms, including the use of restraints and seclusion, physical and sexual abuse, insufficient education, and substandard living conditions. This risk is heightened for children of color, LGBTQIA+ youth, and children with I/DD (intellectual/developmental disabilities) who are most likely to live in these settings.” Black children are 35% more likely than white children to be placed in institutionalized care facilities.

Cornelius Frederick, a 16-year-old Black boy from Michigan, was killed at a facility in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in April 2020. Seven male staff members restrained Frederick for 12 minutes. The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide – asphyxiation.

In 2018, a gay 16-year-old was attacked while residing at St. John’s Academy, a Sequel facility in Florida. His attacker told him that he “didn’t want a fa***t in the pod.” Disability Rights Washington reported that two “crisis plans” for children residing at PRTFs used incorrect gendered pronouns when referring to the child. In 2020, two transgender girls resided at Sequel Courtland in Courtland, Alabama – a boys’ facility. One girl was being stalked by other residents. She did not feel safe.

Further Information

For further reading about the kinds of abuses that go on in these facilities, consider reading a blog I wrote in April about group homes. You can also reach out to local representatives about ending or reducing out-of-state institutionalizations, which are harder to investigate than in-state institutions.

The Eradication of Malaria in Egypt: A Triumph for Public Health and Human Rights

When thinking about malaria, we tend to forget its impact across the world. Especially living in the global north, my experience with malaria has been restricted to my coursework; however, the reality of the disease is that it exists and poses a prominent issue in many countries across the world. The illness, spread by a mosquito vector, had over 247 million cases in 2021; this spanned across many regions worldwide, primarily impacting Africa.

In recent years, the WHO (World Health Organization) has worked in many different countries to eradicate malaria and has successfully done so with their WHO Guidelines for Malaria. An example of these guidelines being successful is Algeria, which reported its last case in 2013. However, a recent accomplishment in the world of malaria has been noted, which is the eradication of the disease in Egypt. For decades, Egypt had struggled with the disease and the associated outcomes.

Image 1: Receipt of malaria-free certification in WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region.Source: WHO — Image 1: Receipt of malaria-free certification in WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region. Source: WHO

Malaria’s History in Egypt

The nature of Egypt had made it susceptible to the fruition of the illness. Historically, the disease was tested around the Nile Delta and Upper Egypt, tracing back to 4000 B.C.E. As most of the population was concentrated in these areas, it led to the development of disease impacting millions of individuals. In recent history, the illness has contributed to the fragility of the country, ranging from increased economic losses, inflated healthcare costs, and decreased labor productivity.

The first ever effort to control malaria can be dated to 1950, with the introduction of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT). This initial intervention was an insecticide that was used to help not only reduce the mosquito population but also address the development of typhus and other insect-borne diseases. However, this intervention resulted in some resistance amongst the community and additional environmental concerns; as of 2001, the intervention was observed as a possible human carcinogen and has since been banned in Egyptian agriculture.

In 1969, the creation of the Aswan Dam posed a new risk for the development of disease, all of which resulted in the need for new interventions. With additional adjustments to the approach against malaria, in the 1980s, the WHO helped push towards the eradication of malaria in Egypt with their eradication program. This program included regions like Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East and Eurasia. This resulted in outcomes such as reducing the number of cases by 300,000 between 1980 and 2010. Though these outcomes are significant, those with limited access to healthcare were still disadvantaged in the global conversation.

Image 2: Doctors in Egypt are conducting malaria tests on elderly patients in rural Egypt.Source: WHO — Image 2: Doctors in Egypt are conducting malaria tests on elderly patients in rural Egypt. Source: WHO

The New Approach to Malaria

Building upon previous interventions, additional interventions have been explored in the past few decades; these have contributed meaningfully to the eradication of malaria in the country. Before mobilizing interventions, it is important to educate communities about what malaria is and develop trust in proposed interventions. The Egyptian government, in collaboration with different NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), launched different campaigns that reached communities all across the country; these talked about prevention, symptoms, and where people can find diagnostic centers. These were taught in schools, local community centers, and other locations to ensure that populations were able to access the information needed to become a part of the solution. This resulted in an 80% increase in malaria case reporting in disproportionately impacted areas by 2020.

These education opportunities are coupled with healthcare access and monitoring. By improving the healthcare infrastructure, treatment facilities were able to strengthen their interventions for those impacted by malaria. However, with recent inflation and economic instability in the country, with the support of international supporters, these interventions became even more accessible by being low-cost or even free. With the additional investment into data collection and monitoring systems, the Egyptian Ministry of Health was able to monitor trends in malaria incidence and collaborate with healthcare providers to mobilize and target interventions for those who need them most. With the compounded efforts of treating and monitoring malaria, strides were made to help understand the spread of malaria in the country.

Beyond education and monitoring, it is valuable to identify interventions that would be accessible to the population. These interventions must be easily understood to ensure they are efficacious. Vector control is noted to be central to Egypt’s strategy. Leveraging the use of insecticide-treated bed nets was the most prominent intervention; by 2019, 3 million of these nets had been distributed to reduce the incidence of malaria, especially in high-risk areas. This, coupled with indoor spraying, helped reduce malaria cases by 90% in over 2 decades.

Malaria Eradication is a Victory for Human Rights

As outlined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the right to health is fundamental to human existence. By working to eradicate malaria in the country, Egypt has made strides to fulfill this right for its citizens of all socioeconomic classes.

Egypt’s victory brings hope to the fight against malaria; not only can public health interventions align with human rights, but they can create a sustainable model for health equity. Many countries in the global south are in a place that Egypt was in not too long ago; as global communities begin to face the amplification of health issues, Egypt’s framework and history of eradication can be seen as a success and applied to other countries.

Now that malaria is off the docket of issues Egypt faces, it is not time to focus on addressing other inequities the country is facing. As health equity is improved in the country, issues such as mental health, maternal and child health, and non-communicable diseases can be addressed with the utmost efficiency, helping improve outcomes in the country.

The Death Penalty in the US: Legalized Murder?

On September 24, 2024, the state of Missouri executed an innocent Black man. Why did they kill him?

Marcellus Williams was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Felicia Gayle. There was no physical evidence linking Williams to her murder: fingerprints, footprints, hair, and DNA found at the crime scene did not match Williams. The only evidence against Williams was testimony from two witnesses whose accounts were inconsistent and unverifiable. Gayle’s family favored life imprisonment. The county prosecutor favored life imprisonment. Only Missouri’s Attorney General wanted Williams executed – and he got his wish.

Williams was innocent of the crime for which he was executed. He never had a fair trial. The prosecution struck 6 of 7 Black jurors, one of whom was rejected “because he looked too much like Williams.” Missouri knew they were executing an innocent man – and they did it anyway.

History of the Death Penalty in America

Capital punishment has been a part of the American legal system since before the United States was a country. The first person executed in the British colonies was George Kendall, who was executed by firing squad for mutiny in 1608. By the early 1900s, public support for the death penalty was beginning to wane, and some states abolished the practice.

Utilizing capital punishment was briefly illegal nationwide. The 1972 Supreme Court Decision Furman v. Georgia ruled that existing death penalty statutes were discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. That lasted until 1976, when the Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia that Georgia’s updated death penalty statute was constitutional, and executions resumed. Since 1976, 1,601 people have been executed. Today, only 21 states still have the death penalty, and only ten have executed people in the last decade.

Methods for capital punishment have varied greatly over the last two centuries. Early in American history, the most common were firing squad and hanging. Over time, hangings have become associated with lynchings. Despite that history, in 2023, a Tennessee lawmaker proposed that “hanging by a tree” be used as an alternative method of execution in the state. In 1890, the first person was executed with the electric chair, which was the most common method for several decades until lethal injection became more popular after its first use in 1982.

A white room with a gurney with several thick straps used for restraining prisoners. — Image 1: A white room with a gurney and several thick straps was used to restrain prisoners. Source: Yahoo Images.

Lethal injection has faced challenges in recent years for a few reasons. Drug manufacturers do not want to be associated with homicide – and thus refuse to sell the required drugs to state governments – and medical professionals refuse to administer the medicines. Instead of medical professionals, correctional workers struggle to find veins and sometimes fail entirely, causing delayed executions. Roughly 3% of executions are botched, and people subjected to botched executions are disproportionately Black – 1/3 of executions nationwide are of Black prisoners, while 1/2 of botched executions are of Black prisoners. Even when not botched, lethal injections have been shown to be less humane than originally believed. The drugs used are painful and cause the lungs to fill with fluid – typically without proper anesthesia.

Black prisoners are also treated differently immediately before they are executed. Jeff Hood, who has witnessed six executions – three of Black prisoners, three of white – told NPR, “I can definitely tell you that the restraints that I have seen on Black folk have been unquestionably tighter than the restraints that I have seen on white folk.”

More recently, there has been controversy over a new execution method: nitrogen hypoxia. The state of Alabama has executed two people – Kenneth Smith and Alan Eugene Miller – by nitrogen hypoxia in the last year. The state had previously attempted to execute both Smith and Miller by lethal injection, but correctional workers were unable to place IV lines in either man over the course of several hours. There is another Institute of Human Rights blog post, published in the fall of 2023, that extensively details execution methods.

Problems of the Death Penalty

Two of the most common reasons given for keeping the death penalty are deterrence and justice. Justice argues an eye for an eye – that, for some crimes, the only possible form of justice is death. That is a philosophical debate, and one I will not discuss today. Instead, I will focus on the effect of the death penalty on homicide rates – deterrence. Deterrence is the idea that the existence of the death penalty deters crime – it reasons that prospective murderers are logical people who will be less likely to kill others if it will result in their death.

In 2012, the National Research Council conducted a literature review on studies examining any deterring effects executions – and the general presence of the death penalty – have on homicide rates. They concluded that studies had not yet demonstrated any effect capital punishment has on homicide rates and recommended that the “research… should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment.”

One of the most powerful arguments used by death penalty abolitionists is about wrongful convictions. Someone who is sentenced to life in prison can be released if they are found innocent; that is not so with someone who is dead, such as Marcellus Williams. Wrongful convictions are common; for every eight executions in the United States since 1977, one person sentenced to death was exonerated. 82% of death penalty exonerations are due to official misconduct and 36% of death penalty sentences are overturned.

Glynn Simmons was exonerated in December 2023 for a crime he did not commit. He spent 48 years in prison. The state knew when he was convicted in 1975 that Simmons was innocent; he was in Louisiana when the crime was committed in Oklahoma. Despite that, it took almost 50 years – 2/3 of Simmons’ life – for him to finally be exonerated. Imprisonment is reversible. Death is not.

A broken chain. — Image 2: A large broken chain. Source: Yahoo Images

What Can Be Changed?

Activists have worked for decades to reform or eliminate the death penalty. Two organizations that have been involved in numerous exonerations are the Innocence Project and the Equal Justice Initiative. Both organizations provide legal aid to innocent prisoners. Other ways to support change include petitioning state and federal legislators to end or reform the death penalty.

Understanding Vaccine Diplomacy in the Case of COVID-19: A Global Approach to Health EquityUnderstanding Vaccine Diplomacy: A Global Approach to Health Equity

In the landscape of global health, vaccine diplomacy has emerged as a compelling strategy, melding healthcare initiatives with international relations. This approach is pivotal in the ongoing battle against infectious diseases, most recently the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine diplomacy involves countries utilizing their surplus vaccine supplies to forge diplomatic ties, enhance global influence, and foster goodwill. This is often done in partnership with private pharmaceutical entities and public health organizations. However, while aiming to address the urgent need for equitable vaccine access worldwide, vaccine diplomacy raises critical questions concerning human rights and health equity on a global scale.

Evolution of Vaccine Diplomacy

The vaccine diplomacy has existed long before the COVID-19 pandemic, but we noted its increased influence during this unique time. Nations like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, possessing robust vaccine manufacturing capabilities, sought to leverage their surplus doses as a means of geopolitical influence. For example, the United States promised to donate over 1.1 billion vaccines by 2023. This approach gained momentum as vaccine shortages persisted across continents, exacerbating health inequities, especially among women and children, and prompting a response beyond national borders.

Photo of vaccine vile.Source: Flickr — Photo of vaccine vile. Source: Flickr

Examples of Vaccine Diplomacy

Vaccine diplomacy has manifested in diverse forms. China and Russia have actively supplied their respective COVID-19 vaccines, including Sinovac, Sinopharm, and Sputnik V, to various nations as part of aid packages or through bilateral agreements. India, known for its significant vaccine production capacity, contributed doses through the COVAX initiative and direct donations to neighboring countries and beyond. These mobilization efforts are valuable to the development and growth of vaccine diplomacy through the lens of aid. This improves the well-being of marginalized groups and pushes national interests abroad.

Photo of kids lining up to get vaccinated.Source: Flickr — Photo of kids lining up to get vaccinated. Source: Flickr

Human Rights and Vaccine Diplomacy

At its core, vaccine diplomacy intersects with human rights, particularly the right to health. Access to vaccines is considered a fundamental human right, and ensuring equitable distribution is paramount to providing equal protection against COVID-19. Yet, the disparities in vaccine access have sparked concerns about the violation of this right for marginalized and vulnerable populations globally. Several countries have taken commendable steps to uplift vaccine diplomacy and do their part to make interventions more accessible. The United States pledged substantial donations of vaccine doses through COVAX and direct allocations to nations facing acute shortages, aiming to bolster global vaccine access. Countries like Sweden and Norway have also committed funds to support COVAX’s efforts in distributing vaccines to low-income nations.

To enhance the accessibility and efficacy of vaccine diplomacy, countries must prioritize transparent vaccine-sharing mechanisms, equitable distribution plans, and fair allocation strategies. Greater collaboration among nations, regulatory transparency, and a resolute commitment to multilateralism are essential elements for ensuring broader vaccine access. This can be done through working alongside pharmaceutical companies, local organizations, and many other avenues.

How to Get Involved

Individual engagement plays a pivotal role in advancing the cause of equitable vaccine distribution. Advocating for fair vaccine distribution, supporting initiatives that promote vaccine access in underserved communities, and raising awareness about the critical importance of global health equity are impactful ways for individuals to contribute. Engaging with policymakers, supporting organizations dedicated to vaccine distribution, and staying informed about global health issues are pivotal steps toward effecting change.

Vaccine diplomacy stands at the nexus of opportunity and challenge in addressing the global vaccine disparity. While it serves as a conduit for international cooperation, its success hinges upon ensuring vaccines reach those most in need, aligning with the fundamental principles of human rights and health equity.

Yemen in the News? Let’s Recap.

In the past couple of months, Yemen has been mentioned a lot. More specifically, the Houthis or, as some have called them, Ansarallah. You might be wondering first, “What is Yemen?” Why are they being talked about? Who are the Houthis/Ansarallah? How is Saudi Arabia involved? And where is the government? These are all questions that I heard many people around me ask. So, in this article, we will answer all these questions as well as explain Yemen’s situation and wars coming from a Yemeni American.

HISTORY

Before diving into the issues concerning Yemen, we have to cover some important history of Yemen to have a full understanding. Yemen’s history can stretch back 3000 years and the biggest evidence of that is the architecture of the villages and towns in it. Yemen had three successive civilizations: Minean, Sabaean, and Himyarite.

Ancient Yemen played a crucial role in overland trade between Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean civilizations due to its strategic location. Pre-Islamic trading kingdoms, such as Minaean and Saba’, thrived on incense trade. The decline began with the Romans favoring the Red Sea, leading to the loss of wealth for southern Arabian kingdoms.

The rise of Islam in the 7th century saw Yemen’s rapid conversion. Muslim caliphs ruled, followed by local dynasties like Zaydi imamate and Rasulids. The Ottoman Empire took control in the 16th century, bringing Yemen under their rule. Despite a flourishing coffee trade, Yemen remained culturally isolated.

The 19th century marked the division of Yemen into North and South, controlled by the Ottomans and British, respectively. North Yemen faced opposition, leading to the Ottoman evacuation in 1918. Two powerful imams ruled North Yemen until the 1962 revolution, resulting in the establishment of the Yemen Arab Republic (YAR).

The YAR faced internal conflicts and external interventions, including support from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A coup in 1974 led to military rule under Colonel Ibrahim al-Hamdi. His assassination in 1977 and subsequent leaders set the stage for the lengthy presidency of Ali Abdullah Saleh, who ruled North Yemen until its unification with South Yemen in 1990.

TIMELINE OF YEMEN’S CONFLICT

Yemen’s modern history is a tumultuous journey marked by political transitions, civil wars, and external interventions. Understanding the dynamics of this complex narrative is crucial, especially for students seeking clarity amid the intricate details. Let’s embark on a journey through the early years of Yemen, focusing on key events involving President Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Houthi rebels.

In the 1990s, Yemen underwent a significant transformation with the reunification of North and South Yemen. Ali Abdullah Saleh, the president of North Yemen since 1978, transitioned to become the president of the Republic of Yemen. Concurrently, the Zaidi-Shia group Ansar Allah, commonly known as the Houthis, gradually gained power, with President Saleh’s tacit support. A brief civil war erupted in 1994 between the unintegrated armies of the north and south, resulting in the defeat of the southern army and solidifying Yemen’s reunification.

In 2000, President Saleh reached a border demarcation agreement with Saudi Arabia, seeking to disarm the Houthis, whom he had previously considered a valuable tool against Saudi interference. Tensions escalated between Saleh’s government and the Houthis, leading to a rebellion in 2004 initiated by Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi.

The conflict unfolded in several phases, with government crackdowns, rebellions, ceasefires, and amnesty grants. Saleh’s government faced sporadic clashes with the Houthis, and in 2010, Operation Scorched Earth aimed to crush the rebellion. The Houthis, however, persisted, engaging in cross-border clashes with Saudi forces.

Inspired by the Arab Spring, Yemen experienced widespread demonstrations in 2011, calling for an end to Saleh’s 33-year rule. Despite initial concessions, the protests intensified, leading Saleh to agree to a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)-brokered deal. However, clashes persisted until November 2011, when Saleh’s deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, assumed power.

The National Dialogue Conference in 2014 laid the groundwork for a new constitution, and a political transition plan was approved. However, anti-government protests erupted, leading to the dissolution of President Hadi’s cabinet. In 2014, the Houthis seized control of Sanaa, and by early 2015, they took over the Yemeni government, prompting President Hadi to flee.

In response to Houthi advances, a Saudi-led coalition initiated Operation Decisive Storm in 2015, launching indiscriminate airstrikes and imposing a naval blockade. Despite subsequent efforts like Operation Restoring Hope, the conflict escalated, leading to a dire humanitarian crisis. Yemen became a battleground, but not for what is being told. One of those example is Al-Mahra.

In the shadows of Yemen’s well-documented conflicts lies a lesser-known struggle for control in the easternmost governorate of Al-Mahra. While the global narrative often focuses on the Houthi rebellion and the Saudi-led coalition’s efforts, the intricate dynamics at play in Al-Mahra offer a unique perspective on regional power shifts and economic interests.

Since 2017, Al-Mahra residents have witnessed a gradual influx of Saudi troops, raising concerns and sparking anxiety among the local population. What initially seemed like a limited military presence evolved into a comprehensive campaign by Saudi Arabia to establish control over the governorate, extending its influence to the Omani border in the east.

The intensified Saudi presence in Al-Mahra, marked by establishing over 20 military bases and outposts, fueled speculations regarding the kingdom’s interest in constructing an oil pipeline. With a population of no more than 300,000, Al-Mahra became a battleground for what some believed was a strategic move to secure a pipeline route for Saudi crude oil to the Arabian Sea.

Leaked diplomatic cables from 2008 revealed Saudi Arabia’s longstanding interest in building a pipeline by securing territories and gaining the loyalty of local leaders. The Saudis went beyond military installations, recruiting Mahri locals and attempting to create their irregular military force. The transfer of Mahri tribes from Saudi Arabia to Al-Mahra further deepened suspicions, leading to clashes between Mahri tribes and Saudi engineering crews.

Saudi forces secured Nishtun port, raising suspicions that it could serve as the intended site for an oil export terminal. A leaked memo from 2018, thanking the Saudi ambassador for a feasibility study on an oil port, added fuel to the speculation. While not explicitly mentioning Al-Mahra, the memo heightened concerns and contributed to the belief that Saudi Arabia was preparing to extend an oil pipeline through Yemen.

Governaorates in Yemen — Governorates in Yemen.

Amidst these developments, skepticism arose, suggesting that Saudi deployments and tactics aimed to counter Oman’s influence in Al-Mahra. Tensions between Saudi Arabia and Oman, exacerbated by the Yemen war, saw Oman leveraging various factors, including granting citizenship and maintaining ties with Mahri political leaders, to resist Saudi influence. Publicly, Saudi Arabia claimed its troop deployments focused on combating Houthi arms smuggling.

Critics argue that the theory of a Saudi pipeline in Al-Mahra is implausible given Yemen’s entrenched political instability. Protecting a multi-billion dollar pipeline would pose significant challenges with ongoing conflicts, external pressures, and internal threats. Even before the 2011 uprising, reports suggested Yemen’s volatility made it unsuitable for such projects. Adding another layer to the complexity of this conflict.

International outrage grew over the humanitarian crisis, and in 2018, the US Senate invoked the War Powers Resolution to end its support for the Saudi-led coalition. The Stockholm Agreement in December 2018 aimed for a ceasefire, but peace remained elusive.

In February 2021, President Biden announced a shift in the US approach, revoking the Houthi FTO designation and ending support for the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive operations. Efforts toward peace continued, with UN-mediated talks and a two-month truce declared in April 2022.

NOW

Despite the recent peace agreement between the Houthi rebel group and the Saudi-led coalition, Yemen continues to make headlines due to the dire humanitarian situation and escalating conflicts. The so-called “peace” only involved the Houthi rebels and the coalition, leaving the rebel group in power and the Yemeni people still suffering. Let’s examines the recent events that have unfolded in Yemen, shedding light on the complexities of the situation.

By mid-2023, dissatisfaction with the Houthi rebels’ control began to rise among the Yemeni population. The rebels’ oppressive regime, characterized by restrictions on rights, exorbitant “protection” fees, and crippling economic conditions, fueled public discontent. However, the rebels cleverly diverted attention by exploiting the longstanding Yemeni support for Palestine. On December 9, the rebels announced their blockade of Israeli ships in the Red Sea, citing the ongoing situation in Gaza as the reason. This move united Yemenis, temporarily halting internal uprisings and garnering increased support for the rebel group.

In response to the rebel blockade, the US and UK coalitions initiated airstrikes on multiple Yemeni cities on January 11. The airstrikes were portrayed as retaliation for the rebels’ interference with ships due to the Gaza conflict. This military response effectively quashed any attempts at democracy, sparking anger and resentment among Yemenis who felt victimized by the international intervention.

The US-led coalition’s bombing campaign intensified, with the worst attack occurring on February 3. Many described it as more severe than previous assaults, even during the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive. The bombings targeted vital infrastructure, including one of Yemen’s international airports, resulting in halted flights, disrupted electricity, and widespread fear among the population.

Yemen, already grappling with eight years of conflict, faced an alarming humanitarian crisis. The World Food Programme (WFP) highlighted the unprecedented level of hunger, with 17 million Yemenis experiencing food insecurity. Child malnutrition rates were among the highest globally, and a significant portion of families lacked essential dietary elements. The WFP’s December 5 announcement of a pause in food distribution in the North due to funding shortages further worsened the situation.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres pleaded for de-escalation, urging all sides to avoid worsening the situation. Despite initial warnings and concerns expressed by global leaders, including President Joe Biden, the airstrikes persist, deepening the crisis in Yemen.

As Yemen grapples with the aftermath of international airstrikes, the fragile peace has shattered, leaving millions of Yemenis in an increasingly dire situation. The humanitarian crisis, exacerbated by disrupted food distribution and ongoing military actions, demands urgent attention and international cooperation to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people.