Image 1: Women protesting the Taliban’s retaking of power. Source: Yahoo Images.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all humans, no matter their sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc., have distinct rights. These include the rights to property, religious freedom, education, government participation, and freedom of movement within a country and outside a country, to name a few. Speaking about what we think and moving freely in public are some of the most basic rights that should be available to all humans, no matter where they are located or who they are. For the past 20 years, Afghan women have fought hard for their freedoms and rights to live life as they see fit. These are rights that have now been stripped from them once again, a reflection of the first Taliban rule.
In 1994, the Taliban surfaced as militant leaders of Afghanistan as a result of a civil war that the country had recently experienced. From 1994 to 2001, the Taliban reigned over Afghanistan, continuously revoking women’s rights. Those rights included education, healthcare, freedom of movement, and involvement in political affairs. If a woman was to leave the house, she was not allowed to show any skin. Burqas, which are loose clothing that covers the entire body and face, were a requirement. This article will update women’s rights violations in the recent years.
The Taliban’s Continued Attack on Education:
Image 2: Five Taliban members holding weapons. Source: Yahoo Images.
The Taliban had issued empty promises of upholding women’s rights when regaining control of Afghanistan. Within days of assuming control in August 2021, the Taliban had banned co-education and made it illegal for a man to teach a girl. Not a month had passed before their next attack on women’s education came to the fold. This time, women were prohibited from secondary education, and their level of education access was reduced to that of 6th grade. Throughout the years following the Taliban’s return to power, women and their right to education have been tirelessly subjugated to attacks from the Taliban. For a timeline of women’s rights that have been revoked since 2021, look at the United States Institute of Peace website for tracking the mistreatment of women by the Taliban.
In fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) countries, women are significantly more likely to be put out of school. FCV countries are countries that have conflict and violence occurring, causing the country to be in a fragile state. The World Bank Group, which measures gender gaps in education as well as in the economy, labeled Afghanistan as an FCV country. Education is detrimental to the development of any country. The restrictions on education are a way to perpetuate a cycle of poverty and compliance with repressive governments. According to the World Bank Group, education promotes health, stability, peace, and reductions in gender gap and poverty.
The first thing that was taken from women in Afghanistan in 2021 was their right to education. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, the article emphasizes the right to education as a universal right. This is a right that is infringed upon in many countries and is especially evident in Afghanistan. For a more in-depth look into women’s education in Afghanistan in the months following the Taliban, check out Nikhita Mudium’s blog post on Women’s Education in Afghanistan.
Recap: 2024 Restrictions on Women in Afghanistan
Image 3: Four Afghan women wearing blue burqas while walking with a little boy. Source: Yahoo Images.
In a report done by Human Rights Watch, one of the most visited news updates of 2024 was about Afghanistan and the Taliban’s rule. The rest of the world has watched in horror as windows looking into the kitchens of homes have been boarded shut. The very image and the very sound of women’s voices are becoming something that is silenced and stowed away. As of August 2024, women’s voices are not allowed to be heard in public. The excuse of tempting a man has closed off women’s access to public spaces such as parks and educational facilities.
Another attack on women came in the form of shutting beauty salons down, which in turn put nearly 60,000 women out of jobs. Not only has this newest ban taken away further employment of women, but it also took away safe places that women had outside of the home. Additionally, women no longer have positions in healthcare. To further add to the turmoil, male healthcare workers are often not allowed to examine women, leaving many without medical aid. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that the freedom of movement within one’s own country is a universal right. Not only are women banned from public spaces, but they are also not allowed to leave the house without the accompaniment of a male relative.
In the most recent development, the Taliban has demanded that NGOs (Nongovernmental organizations) operating in Afghanistan must get rid of female staff. Any NGO that does not comply will have their license to operate in Afghanistan revoked. NGOs are voluntary organizations that are not affiliated with a government that provides services for the public. This would greatly affect Afghanistan’s most vulnerable group of people: Afghan women and children.
While the international response has been to limit support and humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, this response is more likely to harm the women within the country. Especially after a climate crisis, the lack of aid directly affects women and children the most. For a more in-depth evaluation of natural disasters, lack of humanitarian aid, and its substantial effect on women in Afghanistan, read Delisha Valacheril’s post, Deadly Earthquake in Afghanistan Magnifies Gender Apartheid Under Taliban Control.
Afghan Women Will Not Be Silenced:
Image 4: Afghan women at an overlook wearing a variety of colorful clothing. Source: Yahoo Images.
In 2024, Human Rights Watch reported that artists are contributing pieces in protest of the Taliban and their treatment of Afghan women. Rada Akbar and Fatima Wojohat are both Afghan artists who were forced to flee after the Taliban’s retaking of Afghanistan. Their artwork expresses the struggle of Afghan women, as well as the strength and resilience that they possess. Their artwork is an attempt to amplify the voices that the Taliban desperately tries to suppress. In a feature by Human Rights Watch, Rada Akbar’s art is a representation of the importance women play in society as well as the diversity of Persian women.
In her statement to Afghan women, she says, “Your dreams are not just valid–they are vital, and your voice carries weight, even in silence.”
Along with that, in September of 2024, a meeting at UN Headquarters–which included the Women’s Forum on Afghanistan–discussed life in Afghanistan for women since the return of the Taliban in 2021. The UN, since then, has stated its intent to amplify the voices of women in Afghanistan, as well as to not be stagnant in the organization’s opposition to gender-based discrimination. Without the participation of women, there will be no successful future for Afghanistan.
It is imperative that the world continue to pay attention to the atrocities that are occurring in Afghanistan. As always, one way to help is to stay informed and to help spread awareness by sharing reliable news sources. One of the best things that can be done is to listen to the voices of Afghan women that the Taliban tries so hard to snuff out. Their voices matter, their dreams matter, and most importantly, the success of their future matters.
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.
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.
Understanding the risks posed by facial recognition technology, protesters adopted innovative and sometimes unconventional tactics to shield their identities. Three key countermeasures stood out:
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.
Image 2: Skyscrapers in Hong Kong with student protestors camping in the road. Flickr.com.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Image 1: Map pointing to Niger. Source: Yahoo! Images
Overview
Niger has the highest frequency of child marriage globally, with 76% of girls getting married before turning 18 and 28% married by the age of 15. The health, education, and opportunities forgirls are all significantly impacted by this prevalent practice. Although the problem is sustained by cultural customs, financial constraints, and gender norms, initiatives by regional authorities, global organizations, and civic leaders are encouraging hope for change. The causes, effects, and strategies for ending child marriage in Niger will all be covered in this piece.
Understanding the Root Causes of Child Marriage
Poverty and Financial Pressures
One of the primary causes of child marriage in Niger is economic hardship. Many families struggle to support their children while living in poverty. In these situations, marrying girls at an early age often seems like a sensible solution. To help with their immediate financial burdens, families may get dowries or other financial benefits. However, young brides are often denied access to education, reducing their future earning potential; this exchange keeps females trapped in poverty cycles.
Cultural and Social Norms
Child marriage is mainly influenced by cultural customs and societal standards. Early marriage is viewed as a way to maintain family honor in many communities. In an effort to preserve their virginity and avoid premarital pregnancies, which might shame their family, girls tend to get married before they experience their first menstrual cycle. These societalstandards usually limit women’s duties to that of mother and wife, which deters people from funding their education.
Limited Access to Education
One of the most effective ways to prevent child marriage is through education, yet many Nigerien girls still lack access to it. There are often no schools in rural areas, and cultural norms favor boys’ education. Families who believe that females’ primary job is in the home may consider education unimportant, even in cases where it is available. This restricted access perpetuates early marriage and poverty cycles.
The Harsh Consequences of Child Marriage
Health and Maternal Mortality
There are serious health risks for child brides, especially during pregnancy and childbirth. Adolescent pregnancies and early marriages are directly associated with Niger’s high maternal death rate. Due to their underdeveloped bodies, girls are more susceptible to complications, including obstetric fistulas and even death. Health issues not only endanger young moms but also affect their children, who have a higher likelihood of experiencing newborn complications and mortality.
Psychological Impact
Equally important are the psychological repercussions of child marriage. Many child brides suffer from depression, anxiety, and loneliness. They miss opportunities for personal growth and lack autonomy in their relationships because they are forced to leave their childhoods behind. These girls frequently experience abusive relationships, which adds to their trauma.
Economic Disempowerment
Economic disempowerment cycles are perpetuated by child marriage. Girls who marry at a youngage often abandon their education, limiting their access to jobs and financial independence. Leaving abusive or exploitative situations can be very challenging. As a result, this cycle continues, making their children more likely to experience poverty.
Image 2: Nigerian children. Source: Flickr
Ongoing Efforts to End Child Marriage
Governmental and Legislative Measures
In accordance with global commitments, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Nigerian government has taken action to combat child marriage. The legal marriage age has been raised to 18 by legislative reforms, but enforcement is inconsistent because customary law is still so prevalent. The government has adopted policies to enhance girls’ access to education and healthcare, recognizing these as essential elements of its national development plans.
To address the economic causes of child marriage, families need financial support. Programs that provide financial aid or micro-loans lessen the pressure on daughters to marry young. By supporting families to reach financial stability, these programs allow them to invest in their children’s education and long-term welfare.
-Strengthening Law Enforcement: It is essential to ensure that laws against child marriage are continually enforced, especially in remote areas. To effectively handle situations of child marriage, local authorities and court officials must undergo training.
– Expanding Educational Access: Education infrastructure should be invested in, especially in rural areas. Offering financial aid and other incentives may encourage parents to continue sending their girls to school.
– Empowering Girls: Girls canoppose early marriages and fight for their futures with the support of empowerment programs that enhance their self-esteem and awareness of their rights.
– Economic Development: The financial strains that lead to child marriage can be lessened by increasing family livelihood opportunities. Potential channels for economic development include agricultural assistance, small business grants, and vocational training.
– Community Engagement: Local communities must support sustainable change. To alter societal norms, it is necessary to educate the public and engage religious and traditional authorities in the fight against child marriage.
Path Forward
In Niger, child marriage is a complex problem with roots in gender disparity, cultural customs, and poverty. In addition to devastating the lives of innumerable girls, the practice hinders the nation’s larger goals for development. Reform can occur through the collaborative efforts of local communities, international organizations, and the Nigerian government. Niger can end child marriage and provide a better future for its girls through offeringeconomic assistance, education, and empowerment. Every action—whether it’s a family deciding to support their daughter’s goals, a community leader pushing for change, or a girl reclaimingher right to an education—brings the nation one step closer to this critical milestone.
Following a discussion in one of IHR’s Social Justice Cafes, I decided to take a deeper dive into what the terms positive and negative peace entail and what countries across the globe are setting the standard for effective human rights practice. Peace, as we know it, can be defined as freedom from disturbance or fear of violence. So, how then can we have two separate types of peace? The answer is simple. Negative peace is more in line with the definition we are familiar with, implying a lack of disturbance or violence in everyday life. Positive peace takes things a step further by implementing systems and institutions to proactively combat the disruptions of peace before they arrive.
Positive Peace Index
According to the Positive Peace index, a rating scale defined by the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies, 163 countries ranked from best peace practices to worst across the globe. Ratings are based on eight separate factors known as the eight Pillars of Positive Peace, which portray the tolerance level of the country as pertains to varying areas. The pillars are as follows, Acceptance of the Rights of Others, Equitable Distribution of Resources, Free Flow of Information, Good Relations with Neighbors, High Levels of Human Capital, Low Levels of Corruption, Sound Business Environment and Well-Functioning Government. All categories were based on a 1 to 5 scale with 1 being extremely tolerable and 5 being not at all tolerable. During my study, two countries stood at the opposite ends of these spectrums, Finland and South Sudan.
Source: http://paanluelwel.com
Finland ranks number 1 out of 163 countries on the Positive Peace Index scale with an overall 1.43 out of 5. This implies that the country is most tolerable and actively encouraging the eight pillars among its citizens. A closer look at this country’s practices will be taken later in the article. Coming in at number 163 out of 163 countries on the Positive Peace Index is the country of South Sudan, scoring 4.4 out of 5. A 2023 study done by Amnesty International dives deeper into the human rights violations that led to this score. The study showed grave violations to the right to life, movement, safety, refuge and food with over 40% of the population experiencing food insecurity. A report done the same year shows Finland had a number of installments of systems to proactively combat human rights violations including introducing a bill to protect indigenous people, providing support to Ukrainian refugees and expanding LGBTI rights. Although the country still experienced some shortcomings, it stands as a shining example to other countries on the list of how to implement positive peace in its human rights practices.
Source: Flickr
America and Positive Peace
So, where do we stand on the list? American exceptionalism would have you think we were somewhere in the top ten at the very least. On the Positive Peace Index score, the United States of America is tied with Spain coming in at number 26.5 out of 163. Good Relations with Neighbors and Acceptance of Rights of Others are the two pillars that scored the highest with 3.049 out of 5 (remember 1 being extremely tolerable and 5 being not at all tolerable). A study done in 2023 by Amnesty International discusses why the US received this score, highlighting instances of gender-based violence, legislation against LGBTQI communities and nationwide restrictions on reproductive rights. A deeper look at the way lower ranked countries address and administer positive peace may have the potential to move us up in the ranks.
An analytical approach to how nations are administering positive peace requires that we look at the ground level to see what is working for its citizens. In the category of Good Relations with Neighbors, Amnesty International reported extensive support to refugees in Finland although they did shorten the time they would provide international protection. On the other hand, and in the circumstances of the US, a new legislative ban was put in place against asylum seekers altogether. Another example can be seen in the category of Acceptance of Rights of Others, the other category in which the United States scored as being highly intolerable. In addition to a bill put in place to protect the indigenous of Finland, the country also pushed forth legislature to make gender recognition available for members of the LGBTQI community. In the US report communities experience increased violence based on their true or perceived sexual identity, anti-LGBTI laws increased as well as discrimination against citizens of perceived Islamic or Jewish origin after the October 7th Hamas attacks.
While the solution to creating more positive peace systems should be apparent to leaders of nation states, it is difficult to convince a country that their ways are not the way, and social engineering cannot be a top-down process. As a member of society, it is our duty to speak up against the smallest injustices that we encounter. Simply treating a human like a human can have vast outcomes on the difference in relations between neighbors and accepting the rights of others. In Samuel Moyn’s, The Last Utopia, the author speaks strongly about how universal human rights is an idea that simply does not exist, but that we all wish to strive for. In the words of my favorite professor, Jordan Kiper, I encourage human rights advocates to continue to “do the good work”. Whether that work is in discourse, research, instruction, conservation or simply observation.
Source: Magicangelworld.blogspot.com
The idea of universal human rights is attainable through implementation of lasting systems of positive peace. Negative peace has too long been the standard in our history. Those in authority in our government may not want to know what these positive systems of peace look like in our society today, but the discourse has already begun. It is possible that the future of positive peace begins right here with us.
Sustainability means a lot of things to many different people, and I view that as a positive thing. One part of sustainability that is usually highlighted is the focus on environmental sustainability, given the real-time effects of climate change. Individuals apply this to their lives in many forms, such as my grandmother, who refuses to throw away food, or my supervisor, who walks to the office.
When talking about sustainability, people are quick to bring up things like recycling or electric vehicles (EVs). In essence, this is the low-hanging fruit (not necessarily in price, but they require the smallest amount of effort or change). These are the simple things that make wealthy people feel better about unhealthy consumption habits. This blog is not intended to point fingers. I want to highlight this black-and-white perspective of sustainability, which is misguided. Still, it remains a popular view in much of the Global North due to inadequate education or pure convenience.
In 2024, we would rather feel good about ourselves for putting plastic bottles in the recycling bin than examine why we are still using single-use plastic bottles. For some, these reasons are significant, as not everyone has access to clean and safe drinking water. For others, not so much. The ultimate truth is that it is more convenient to adapt sustainability into our current habits than to change our habits to be more sustainable. Essentially, this view is a type of “convenient sustainability”—or capitalistic sustainability— and is a bit of an oxymoron, considering that capitalism thrives on maximizing profits at the expense of any consideration of long-term social or environmental sustainability.
I am not here to encourage anyone to stop recycling and refuse to buy only gas automobiles but to challenge them to think about it in a less binary way. At a basic level, most of these choices are better for the environment than the alternatives. However, they do not get to the root of the problem, which, for this blog, is a society dominated by a reliance on automobiles rather than on diverse modes of transportation.
Figure 1: Protest Sign that reads “Capitalism is the Crisis.” Painted sign that reads “Capitalism is the crisis” in black and red text.
Beyond that, the narrative that buying something new will solve climate change is not only false but reinforces the narrative that innovation under capitalism can save us from the repercussions of climate change, which is the same mentality that has gotten us here.
To get to the root of this problem, we must look at different aspects of the life cycle of products to really get at what true sustainability is—not just environmental sustainability but social and economic sustainability, too. In this blog, I will use the case of car overreliance to illustrate true sustainability. Not only is it poor for the environment, but car overreliance also has human rights concerns due to its impacts on air pollution, communities of color, and the global supply chain.
I want to be clear that I do not think it is reasonable to expect us to eradicate the use of automobiles in this country, nor is it necessary. Cars are needed in many rural areas, and the United States is a large country. But in a culture that loves to flaunt the benefits of a free-market system and increasing consumer choice and freedom, why have we accepted that cars are the only option? This acceptance benefits the automobile industry and the fossil fuel industry, even for EVs.
The Rise of the Automobile
It may be difficult to imagine, but automobiles are a relatively new technology, and they are extremely inefficient. The average American automobile spends 95 percent of its life parked, which seems like a crazy statistic at first until you actually think about the amount of time you spend in your car each day.
For the purpose of this blog, I am specifically targeting EVs because they are too often touted as the solution to climate change, especially in the Global North. What I think is most important to note is that this perspective is a privileged one. There are numerous environmental issues that are directly caused by car overreliance, and EVs will not solve most of them.
Automobiles spit out emissions at the street level, which contributes to climate change by releasing carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons by burning gas and diesel. There is also increasing awareness that automobile exhaust is a public health concern. One 2023 study linked breathing in traffic emissions to increased blood pressure of passengers. Other studies have connected air pollution from automobiles with increased rates of cardiovascular disease, asthma, lung cancer, and death. Additionally, a society focused on cars promotes a sedentary lifestyle, which puts people at risk for many of the same conditions caused by the air pollution from tailpipes.
Moreover, a world built around automobiles (and the rise of the suburb) also benefits large corporations and harms local businesses. Since smaller businesses generally operate in smaller (usually more urban) areas rather than in large commercial lots, car-centric design common throughout the suburbs makes it easier for consumers to purchase from large companies. Meanwhile, many small businesses rely on people walking/passing through, which car dependency negatively impacts.
Urban Sprawl
The rise of the automobile is connected with the rise of the suburbs and modern urban sprawl—think driving down Highway 280 in Birmingham at 5:30 PM on a Tuesday. The rise of the suburbs has increased the number of miles per trip and made it convenient to move far away from the cities. Massive amounts of land were developed, displacing wildlife and allowing the wealthy (and predominantly white) to move away from the cities. Studies have linked development with a decrease in biodiversity. While, arguably, this concerns urban and suburban areas, the suburbs take up significantly more space than urban areas (even though they contain far fewer people living in them).
It is a common misconception to think that a rural home with large, spacious fields is the most “environmentally friendly” way to live, with cities being the enemy of true sustainability, largely due to the historical implications of the Industrial Revolution on cities. While living in a rural area is not necessarily bad for the environment, cities are vastly more efficient from a space perspective, and much of that is because of the diversification of transportation (though this depends on the city).
Much of what I am describing is the ideal end result of success through the American Dream. It focuses on economic prosperity and the goal of owning property and raising a family. It’s no secret that the idea of upward mobility being accessible to all is inaccurate. Aside from that, it can take time before we think about the cost of all of this.
Figure 2: Protesters organizing against the construction of a highway. Source: Yahoo Images. A black and white photo shows individuals marching in a protest against the construction of a highway.
Connection to Human Rights Domestically
Besides the consequences of that for human health we’ve already talked about, overreliance on automobiles exacerbates the already high inequity within the United States. The US Department of Transportation estimates that the construction of the interstate system displaced over 1 million people when it was built starting in the late 1950s. The system was built to connect the United States, and it did, but it connected some groups more than others and came at a high cost to others. The bulk of the interstate system cut through black and brown communities to cater to white commuters who worked in the city but lived in the suburbs. Not only has infrastructure historically cut through communities of color and impacted the once-flourishing social centers there, but by putting a highway there, it places those same groups of people underneath the emissions pipe of people who drive through there every day.
As for the consequences of this shift on cities? There are numerous. One of the main ones that comes to mind is the issue of parking. On UAB’s (University of Alabama at Birmingham) campus, nearly everyone is dissatisfied with the parking situation. This issue goes back to the inefficiency of the automobile. As mentioned earlier, on average, a car is parked for 95 percent of the time, taking up a square of concrete nine feet wide by 18 feet long. This is problematic for urban areas like Birmingham because the density of jobs and people is so high, yet the amount of space is quite tight. It does not take a civil engineer to recognize how inefficient this is in terms of land usage. This is also problematic when you consider that the majority of the time, all the parking lots are empty—yes, they really are empty most of the time.
In addition to their inefficiency, they impact different communities disproportionately. Parking lots are generally built in, near, or even over communities of color, further degrading property values (and can sometimes make those communities warmer due to the heat island effect). This is also concerning for public health because parks in nonwhite areas are generally about half the size of parks in majority-white areas.
When considering all of this, it is not difficult to see how car-centric infrastructure is a human rights issue in the US, often fueled by racist zoning laws and institutions that seek to capitalize on the manipulation of communities of color.
Figure 3:Parking covers more space than building space in downtown Houston, Texas. Source: Yahoo Images. An aerial view of downtown Houston shows that most of the space is used for parking than for buildings.
Similarly, the modern American driver is dissatisfied with the amount of traffic whenever “everyone else” is taking up all the room on the road. In the United States, there are large cities that are known to have this problem due to their almost complete reliance on automobiles. Houston and Atlanta are primary examples of this, where they have such high populations and poor public transportation to accommodate the large daily movement of people.
In Alabama and many other states, the solution is to add more lanes, which makes traffic worse due to a concept called induced demand. While it may seem that adding another lane would allow more space for people to drive and reduce traffic, adding another lane to an inefficient system makes the existing system more inefficient. Increasing roads by 10% will temporarily improve traffic, but over time, it will increase traffic by 10%, making the problem worse.
Human Rights Violations in Congo
EVs, as you may have realized, do not solve our parking or traffic problems. Beyond that, there are human rights concerns with the global supply chain that make EVs less ideal, too.
With EVs specifically, the lithium batteries require a significant amount of cobalt. The largest reserves of cobalt in the world come from mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Copper is also needed for different types of batteries, including cell phone batteries, and it is frequently mined in Congo as well. Unfortunately, families in Congo have been forcibly evicted due to the opening of new cobalt mines. Amnesty International, a global human rights NGO, has accused large companies who are opening these mines of forced evictions, threats, intimidation, and deception of the people who live there.
It is crucial to mention that ethical considerations like this have long been used by the fossil fuel industry to discredit and slow down the movement toward clean energy. It is imperative for the US to curb emissions and shift towards renewable forms of energy. Additionally, automobiles are a significant component of that, making up the largest category at about 29 percent of GHG emissions in the US. Still, it is critical that we do not continue to uphold unjust forms of labor and oppression. It is precisely these systems that have placed the United States as an economic powerhouse through the exploitation of people from other countries, damaging their health and environmental quality for our benefit.
Moving Forward
From an emissions perspective, EVs are a step in the right direction, but they do not begin to touch most of the other issues discussed in this blog, including environmental racism and public health concerns from an automobile-centered society.
EVs won’t solve the parking problem, the traffic problem, the microplastic problem, or the human rights issues associated with the global suppliers that are notoriously secretive about their practices. While they may decrease direct pollution that is linked with all the health conditions I mentioned earlier, they do not erase the damage to the people and countries that are supplying materials for their construction.
What will start to get at the problem is diversifying transportation. While automobiles are needed in many cases, it is extremely exclusive and inefficient to make them the only option, especially in our mid-size and large cities. In some countries, tax dollars fund all transportation infrastructure rather than almost solely funding infrastructure for cars and requiring bike infrastructure to be paid for by private individuals. In the US, most states spent an average of $1.50 to $3 per capita on bike infrastructure.
Improving public transportation in urban areas and between cities, such as through intercity trains, would benefit public health and the environment. It could also be a small start of changing centuries worth of racism and inequity by decreasing pollution and making it so that the people producing the most pollution cannot drive 40 miles outside the city to get away from it.
Investing in public transportation would also improve the lives of people who cannot drive or do not want to. In a car-dominated society, many disabled people and elderly people are forced to rely on others to take them places or pay for expensive Ubers. Giving them the option to travel without the assistance of others, just like everyone who drives themselves to work, is important to preserve their autonomy so they can maintain control over their own life without relying on others.
Car-centric design favors the wealthy and forces the rest of the population to keep up with car payments and insurance, which are quite expensive for the everyday family. According to the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, the average American family’s second highest expenditure (behind housing) is transportation, with 93 percent used for car payments and maintenance. It also favors the automobile companies, which is the biggest reason we do not have diversified transportation (like nearly every other developed country).
The simple truth is that the United States economy benefits from the sale of cars, and changing how we view this is difficult. Changing the infrastructure (and, in some ways, creating it) would not be easy, but it wouldcreate a more inclusive world. To change this, we must make the best decisions and push for improved public transportation, especially in urban areas like Birmingham.
What can we do?
Realistically, no person can change this system individually, and I think that is a large reason why people love talking about EVs and other ways we can individually make an impact.
Overall, wanting to make a difference is a good thing. It is important to pay attention to the companies you purchase from and ensure they are upholding high ethical and sourcing standards. I have mentioned this in previous blog posts, but the best thing to do is to refrain from purchasing unless you truly need it—and even then, try to buy secondhand.
If you do not need a new phone or laptop, do not buy a new one every year. Remember that companies, including the fossil fuel industry, benefit from the mentality that we should all have the newest thing. This is not good for your wallet, and it is especially harmful for the planet and the humans who collect the resources used in things we take for granted every day.
Another thing to consider is reducing your reliance on batteries. I am not saying to throw out all the batteries you may have at home, but to think of it from a purchasing perspective. It is becoming increasingly common for basic household appliances to be battery-powered because they are convenient. For some people, having multiple battery-powered flashlights for camping is a crucial safety measure, but if you need a new appliance for use in your home, be realistic. Batteries are convenient, but do you really need a battery-powered vacuum cleaner or handheld mixer that could be plugged into the electricity grid for use in a home? Given the questionable industries involved in battery production (and their environmental damage when they are not properly disposed of), eliminating the use of battery-powered objects in cases when they are not necessary is a great start.
A Final Note
I cannot finish this blog without mentioning that Birmingham does have a bus system, but it is mostly designed for people who do not have cars. It is designed as a last resort rather than a first choice, which means that users are often viewed negatively for not having a “better” option.
Arguments against diversifying transportation usually include comments that walking or biking is not accessible because things are so far away.
If that is what comes to mind, I’d like you to consider that most major and even mid-size cities (Birmingham included) had expansive public transportation until private car ownership increased from the 1920s to the 1950s. I cannot include them here, but you can find maps of Birmingham’s old streetcar system online.
Many of the tracks are still here, and we drive over them every day without even realizing it.
UAB is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution dedicated to providing equal opportunities and equal access to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex (including pregnancy), genetic information, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran’s status. As required by Title IX, UAB prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity that it operates. Individuals may report concerns or questions to UAB’s Assistant Vice President and Senior Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX notice of nondiscrimination is located at uab.edu/titleix.
