Healthcare workers were covered in Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) and wore double N95 masks cutting into the back of their ears. Some nurses and doctors shared their frustrations and grief but, for many, emotions could be seen solely in their eyes. Eyes became the only windows into seeing each other’s emotional spirit, and it was dwindling. The COVID-19 pandemic pushed healthcare workers to the breaking point, contributing to a healthcare provider shortage that is still vastly impacting medical institutions today. Although many people have moved on, choosing to forget COVID-19, its consequences are still reverberating. COVID-19’s impact did not just linearly diminish as the number of cases decreased. Therefore, the world cannot just ignore the statistically significant possibility of a future pandemic. 

The memories of COVID-19 cannot be shoved under the carpet; living in a false safety that this circumstance will not happen again is an extreme collective denial. Rather, it is vital that the world rebuilds with a new approach to protecting the global population from the next possible source of a global pandemic, what has become more commonly referred to as Disease X. 

Disease “X” is the World Health Organization’s (WHO) coined term for an unknown pandemic pathogen. This is a placeholder concept the organization has created for a pathogen that has not yet mutated into a global outbreak but could do so in the near future. Disease X was first introduced in the WHO 2018 Annual Review of diseases prioritized under the Research and Development Blueprint. The Disease X term was needed to discuss the threat of a hypothetical pathogen that is not known or exists yet. It is still largely debated whether COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) should be considered the first pathogen given Disease X classification. In fact, experts are also discussing whether COVID-19 is just a small taste of what is to come with a far more fatal Disease X. Ultimately, the Disease X concept is considered a pathogen which will hold the right characteristics and ingredients to create another global pandemic. Recognizing the growing threat, the scientific community has turned its attention to defining which types of pathogens the international community should be urgently monitoring. 

For instance, there is specialized focus on zoonotic diseases as the next possible source of Disease X. It takes what is known as a zoonotic jump for an animal virus to become transferable and infectious in human beings. The Center of Disease Control states that an estimate of  “more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people can be spread from animals” whilst “3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals.” These statistics highlight that, in most cases, zoonotic spillover is an inevitability not an anomaly. 

This is especially the case since the boundaries between species have become increasingly  entangled because of deforestation, industrial agriculture, the wildlife trade and climate change. Environmental pressures and human behavior should not be overlooked when addressing zoonotic disease solutions. Notable origins of diseases from animals include Ebola virus, where bats are the suspected virus reservoir; Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human form of the prion disease Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease); Zika virus, which is transmitted by mosquitoes; and Avian influenza (bird flu), which originates in birds. These examples illustrate a disease landscape that could serve as the origin of Disease X and has well-established precedent.

Another potential source of Disease X that needs to be scrutinized is an engineered pandemic pathogen. Carl Jung, an influential Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist, warns that the “only real danger that exists is man himself.” Bioterrorism is a threat to humans created by humans. Alongside nuclear weapons, bioterrorism has become a new missile in the self-destruction toolbox. The development of biotechnology has allowed for advancements in many health sectors such as pharmaceuticals and vaccines. However, it has also made engineering pandemic pathogens that can be customized to have high virulence and fatality rates possible. During the cold war, viral agents were stockpiled as militarized weapons in the US and the Soviet Union. Viral bioterrorism puts everyone at risk and, whether the release of a bioengineered Disease X could be intentional or accidental, the impact would be globally devastating. 

All these factors suggest that Disease X is not a question of if it will cause the next global pandemic — it is a question of when.

Given this, organizations like The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) have identified 25 different virus families that can serve as the host to the next deadly virus. CEPI hypothesizes that Disease X will come from one of these twenty-five different virus families. CEPI’s “100 Days Mission” aims to achieve the ability to respond to the next Disease X pandemic in just under three months by preparing globally accessible vaccines.  The 100 Day Mission is centered around swift and equitable vaccine deployment that will defend those at highest risk in order to stop the spread of an outbreak. Their research on “the most wanted viruses” provides a library of prototype vaccines to preempt the need for the next crucial vaccine by ideally supplying the world with an expedited prophylactic vaccine to contain the spread of the next pandemic. CEPI’s current diversification into the unknown of the 25 families is reimagining pandemic prevention in research. 

The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations was born after the Ebola outbreak highlighted just how ill-equipped state and non-state actors are at containing epidemics. The WHO is often criticized for their inefficient reaction and response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak. The WHO did not have efficient intergovernmental cooperation nor the proper funding needed to execute a cohesive effective response. The Ebola outbreak sheds light on the significant gaps in the global health system, harkening the need for an innovative multifaceted approach to respond to epidemics and pandemics. Ebola should have been the wake-up call. Now, the COVID-19 pandemic is the writing on the wall. 

The COVID-19 Pandemic exposed global governments to a new crisis, a war against a common enemy — a virus. 

Sovereign states have the responsibility to protect and provide for the population in crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic global health security was threatened. However, instead of nations banding together to contain COVID-19, there was global division and politicization of healthcare. The pandemic introduced two predominating questions: who was responsible for COVID-19 and what international actors were going to contain it? 

There needs to be a new framework to instill global cooperation, one that begins with framing viruses as a shared enemy rather than a localized problem. This reframing shifts responsibility not only to individual nations or institutions, but to collective action by changing the narrative to global commitment and shared responsibility. COVID-19 could have been a moment of unification, but it became a moment of polarization. This was not just seen on a global scale. Personally, many people in my own community that didn’t have immunocompromised family members decided it was not their responsibility to protect people from the spread of the virus. This is why framing the virus as a shared enemy and responsibility could create a stronger collective action against the next pandemic. 

 After World War II, global cooperation created the United Nations to prevent future conflict and another devastating world war. The U.N. served as a preemptive measure to ideally maintain peace and established a permanent institution for conflict resolution. Over time, the U.N. has become a platform for diplomacy and has helped shape postwar international order. In addition, the U.N. launched specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), founded in 1948 to address global health issues. The WHO was established from the premise that health is inseparable from peace and security. Ten years after the WHO’s Constitution was created, the Soviet Union (USSR) proposed a WHO-led smallpox eradication program that would become a profound example of global health governance. In 1977, the last confirmed case of smallpox was identified and, by 1980, the WHO declared smallpox eradicated. This success was attributed to a moment of unprecedented global political commitment, even during the height of the Cold War, where the US and the USSR both agreed upon this shared goal of eradication. The program’s strength lay in its measurable objective for complete eradication thus countries systematically reported case detection and worked with the WHO. Nations shared the responsibility by sharing resources. The program had political backing and funding for over a decade. The WHO had a Smallpox Eradication Unit that was led by experts in the field like Donald Henderson, who later founded the Center of Civilian Biodefense Studies at Johns Hopkins. The smallpox eradication campaign can serve as a powerful model for international cooperation. Smallpox remains “the only infectious disease to achieve this distinction.”

The evolution of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR) have made expansive strides in global healthcare. However, the accelerating pace of globalization and the changing global health landscape have revealed critical limitations. The WHO struggled to enforce effective governance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was unable to coordinate an international response, delayed declaring COVID-19 as an international emergency and was not able to hold nations accountable for disease surveillance and timely reporting. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed domestic political agendas which led to a fragmented response and its politicization fueled skepticism on scientific advice globally. What this highlighted is that the WHO has arrived at a critical inflection point where the future of successful pandemic response must be able to transcend political pressures. 

Although the WHO has had a historical commitment to global health, another moment of international solidarity is needed — one where a global crisis becomes the catalyst for cooperation just as World War II served as the platform for creating the U.N. A virus may not be treated as a world war, yet its global consequences and strains are not unlike the destructive impacts of warfare. There are extensive fatalities, governmental instability, economic implications and a shared sense of fear and crisis. So, why isn’t there an international institution or organization solely dedicated and committed to preventing the next global pandemic? 

In 2015, Bill Gates performed a TED Talk where he outlined that the world is not prepared for a pandemic. Fast forward 10 years to today in 2025 the global health system is still not prepared for a pandemic. 

Bill Gates has now proposed a systematic multifaceted solution to prevent the next global pandemic. This solution is the Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization (GERM) team. 

The GERM team would be a permanent institution and organization that can combat and coordinate rapid responses to new potential infectious outbreaks. Ultimately the GERM team could be seen as another functional unit of global cooperation and governance. Additionally, they would be coordinated with the WHO. The GERM team would become a multinational unit that comprises over 3,000 full time specialists in epidemiology, vaccine development, genetic engineering, data science, computer simulation, emergency medicine, communications and diplomacy. The GERM team would be actively monitoring and researching threatening outbreaks. Disease X would be contained before it becomes a global health threat. Bill Gates states in his TED talk that if COVID-19 was caught in the first 100 days it would have saved over 98% of the lives lost. The first 100 days are crucial to stop the spread of an epidemic and the GERM team would be equipped to do so. 

The GERM team is an exemplary theoretical model solution that can transition into becoming a groundbreaking reality. For the GERM team to come into fruition it needs funding. Governments spent an immense amount of funds during COVID-19. Money was poured into economic relief programs, healthcare infrastructure and other aid response measures. The U.S government spent 4.6 trillion dollars and created the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act during the pandemic. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a major U.N. financial agency, estimates that COVID-19 has cost the world around 14 trillion dollars. To put the GERM team’s funding into perspective, spending money on the GERM team now would save nations from spending trillions of dollars later. The GERM team will cost the world 1 billion dollars annually to maintain all the resources and on-the-ground manpower. This is a worthy investment for the survivability of our future. To apply Bill Gates’ motto here — “This is the billions we need to spend in order to save millions of lives and trillions of dollars.”

The funding needed for the GERM team would have an expansive impact beyond stopping Disease X. It could provide another opportunity to advance medical tools for efficiency in many different specialties. To prepare to prevent a pandemic there needs to be investment in diagnostic tools, vaccines and deliverance which will subsequently address health disparities and global accessibility. A case study on microneedle patch vaccines exemplifies the reach the GERM team could have on closing the health security gap. 

The GERM team would fund new research in vaccine deliverance such as microneedle patches. Microneedle patch vaccines provide an efficient delivery system to the dermis and epidermis layers of the skin. Research on this deliverance method has shown higher immunogenicity for some vaccines than the traditional intramuscular needle route. Microneedle patch vaccines could revolutionize immunization strategies because it allows fast global vaccine deployment and mass production. More importantly, this vaccine method does not need large infrastructure or manpower to distribute. The vaccine patches do not require refrigeration, making delivering vaccines in remote areas and rural regions easier, thus improving accessibility. As illustrated, the GERM team’s impact on healthcare development could provide more than just pandemic prevention but could also help remedy the gaps in global health security that disproportionately devastate populations that do not have access to proper healthcare infrastructure. New diagnostic tools and therapeutics, disease surveillance, strengthening existing healthcare infrastructure in low-income countries and pathogen genomic data sharing are just a few more examples of how the GERM team’s impact addresses narrowing the health gap. 

In this era of increasing interdependence between nations, international institutions play a critical role in global governance and are vital forums to address global crises. The United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization are international institutions that are fundamental to global stability in governance, economy and health security. Yet the capacity to respond through these institutions has been undercut by political resistance. The Trump administration, for example, has demonstrated a strong aversion towards global multilateral commitments and institutions. Recently, the administration has cut thousands of programs under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID has long supported global health, education, humanitarian relief and economic development for nations recovering from conflict or disaster. Increased efforts to defund and discredit governmental agencies and organizations such as the WHO have further politized healthcare and weakened international cooperation. The GERM team could have direct funding that could be insulated from shifting political pressures which would bypass bureaucratic delays and geopolitical conflicts. Detailed frameworks for pandemic response are still under development, but the most important promenet is addressing the governance and enforcement gaps by embedding pandemic preparedness into the core agendas of nations. 

The current geopolitical climate has revealed the fragility of global health governance within the hands of today’s leaders. The tension underscores the relevance of Complex Interdependence Theory, founded by Keohane and Nye, which establishes a framework where states are not solely driven by military power or security concerns. Instead, nations are deeply interconnected through shared economies, trade networks, security interests, technological advancements, international institutions, shared health dependencies and environment (Keohane and Nye). States do not operate in isolation. While interdependence is a defining feature of global order, many states perceive it as a liability during global crises, precisely when collective action is most critical. Disease X will not happen in isolation either, it will thread itself through the web of international interdependence. 

 Globalization has fueled more interconnectedness among states, making global cooperation the cornerstone for global stability. A global pandemic is a wicked problem characterized by its complexity. It requires a multifaceted approach that necessitates international cooperation and robust global governance. A single nation is not able to stop a global pandemic alone, yet a single nation’s outbreak can trigger a chain reaction sending the world into crisis. The GERM team is strategically and uniquely positioned to interrupt the chain reaction. However, the question still remains: Who is responsible for Disease X? The answer is everyone — Disease X is our shared global foreign enemy, and it is our collective responsibility to confront it.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post Disease X: The Next Global Foreign Enemy — Are We Ready? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Of course, life in a wheelchair comes with its challenges, but I don’t see my wheelchair as a problem. Disabled people are the largest minority in the United States and also the one that any person can become a part of at any point. The issue is not being disabled, but that the United States is not set up for disabled people to thrive.

Disabled rights have an extremely long way to come, but that is not to say that strides have not been made. The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, was passed in 1990 thanks to relentless efforts by thousands of disabled activists. This is one of the most famous – and one of very few – measures that the U.S. government has taken to protect the rights of its disabled citizens. As stated by the federal government, “The ADA guarantees that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to enjoy employment opportunities, purchase goods and services, and participate in state and local government programs.”

This change is obviously not one that can happen overnight – and no one expects it to. However, it has now been over 30 years since the ADA was passed and disabled individuals still face significant barriers that prevent access to opportunities that the rest of the population is able to take advantage of. Examples of this exist in every sector that the ADA claims to address, but the most impactful in my life has been that of public transportation. There are elevators that don’t work and bus drivers who refuse to let wheelchairs on their bus, but that is to be expected. These are not things that can be completely eradicated and are just part of the disabled experience. 

However, the country’s most applauded public transportation system was not something that I expected to be so much of an issue. Visiting New York City for the first time as a full-time wheelchair user made me realize just how behind the city is regarding accessibility. Despite being the most popular transit system in the country, the New York subway is only 30% accessible and does not expect to reach 95% accessibility until 2055. The work to make the subway accessible began in the 1980s, yet within the subway system’s 472 stations, only roughly 150 are currently ADA-compliant.

Full accessibility requires time and money, but it also needs advocates. The simple fact is that disabled people are frequently ignored and their needs are seen as less important, if considered at all. However, the fight for accessibility cannot be one that is put on the back burner, and systems such as the New York subway must make this a priority rather than just a passive project that will happen eventually.

A Trump presidency, and the rise of anti-DEI rhetoric that has come with it, is deeply concerning in relation to the ADA and the general issue of disabled rights. Trump and the GOP have been framing DEI as a new concept and an unreasonable and pointless waste of resources. Trump’s executive order ending government DEI programs lists them as discriminatory efforts that lead to unfairness and inequality. The inclusion of DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility) in this executive order points out an intent to end equitable disability policy as well. Many anti-DEI voices claim that the elimination of these programs will not hurt disabled populations and that disabled rights will not be encroached upon. However, this is simply untrue. 

Accessibility and the ADA exemplify the principles of DEI, most prominently that of equity. The existence of a ramp into a building is equity – equality would mean leaving a set of stairs and leaving those with mobility issues to fend for themselves. This is equal, of course, but that does not make it fair. Many opponents of DEI argue that these policies provide unfair advantage to minority groups and give unqualified individuals opportunities that they do not deserve. However, systemic barriers exist and remain a problem for many people in the United States. 

Redlining was not ended in the United States until the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968, the gay panic defense is still permitted in 30 states and historical buildings do not face the same scrutiny from the ADA that others do. The United States presents itself as a progressive nation in many ways and one that has moved past its dark history of civil rights infringements. However, these sorts of things are not nearly as far in the past as we think. Brown v. Board of Education was passed in 1954 and integration remained a contentious issue for the decades following. Frankly, it is ridiculous to believe that wrongs like these could have been entirely fixed in less than a century. Hopefully, the United States will reach a point where DEI is unnecessary. This has not happened yet, though.

In the realm of accessibility, the United States continues to fail its disabled citizens. Although the ADA does exist, that does not mean that it is followed. Personally, I have been rejected from jobs purely because I am in a wheelchair. When I have reported this issue, the most that has happened is that the employer gets reprimanded, if anything at all. I have been turned away from classes I paid for because of an inaccessible environment and refused a refund. These are only some of the barriers faced by disabled people, and other marginalized groups, in the United States. Under Trump, I can only expect for these disparities to worsen. 

Trump’s disdain for disabled communities came into conversation in 2015 after he mocked a disabled reporter during a campaign rally. This has continued and on Mar. 20, 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order to abolish the Department of Education. Special education is guided by the DoE and countless protections for disabled students exist because of the DoE. With his long standing dispute against the DoE, Trump continues to present an air of indifference towards the ability of disabled people to succeed. 

By abolishing the DoE, Trump is effectively removing safeguards to ensure that disabled students have equal access to education. And, by removing all DEIA policies, he doubles down on this. First, the Trump administration is adding barriers to education. Then, the administration is making it harder for disabled people to find jobs. It is already legal to pay disabled workers a subminimum wage and, in 2022, the median annual salary for disabled workers was $46,877 while the median salary for non-disabled workers was $55,208. Even with DEIA policies, there remains a stark difference in the benefits that disabled employees receive. There is already a shocking number of barriers to employment access for disabled people and, by removing governmental support for these communities, Trump is making it even more difficult to succeed in a society that is not set up for disabled communities. The United States is not so far from its horrific past and the country has yet to right all past wrongs. DEIA makes this a possibility and gives hope to the millions of Americans who continue to face discrimination in the workplace.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post What Trump’s Anti-DEI Policy Means for Disabled Americans appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As I waited for ChatGPT to respond, I looked across my dorm to the clock that read 1:17AM. 

I can’t remember what prompted my roommate and I to start a conversation with ChatGPT, but I do recall being surprised by how much we enjoyed our conversation with OpenAI’s chatbot. 

It answered countless silly questions in extreme detail, all while asking follow-up questions and telling us that it “loved listening to our stories.” While the bot’s phrasing was occasionally awkward and used more alliteration than a person would, its responses were genuinely fun and encouraging. 

Ultimately, our conversation with ChatGPT lasted over two hours—but we were far from the only ones having a late-night therapy session with an AI chatbot. 

In fact, more and more people have turned to AI chatbots for mental health support. 

On CharacterAI, a platform where users can talk to chatbots based on fictional and real-life figures, there are approximately 475 chatbots designed to act like a “therapist,” “psychologist” or “psychiatrist.” The most popular of these chatbots — “Psychologist” — received 78 million messages between 2023 and 2024, 18 million of which were shared in a period of just under two months. 

Woebot, an AI therapist app which around 1.5 million people downloaded within its first six years, is an example of an early chatbot designed specifically for therapy and trained to provide responses based on scripts written by certified mental professionals. Character.AI and ChatGPT on the other hand, are generative AI chatbots that have not been trained according to psychological guidelines and are instead designed to learn from and mirror users’ responses. 

Interestingly, generative AI chatbots are skyrocketing in popularity among users seeking mental health support due to these platforms’ availability and accessibility, some even choosing it over human mental health professionals. 

While human counselors have to see other patients and take care of responsibilities aside from their job, AI chatbots are available 24/7. This is extremely helpful for users who need counseling at unconventional hours when human support is unavailable or who want sessions that last longer than an hour. 

Moreover, talking to a chatbot can be conducted via various free AI platforms and from whatever physical location the user prefers. This eliminates the costs of the mental health service itself and those associated with traveling to a therapist’s office. 

Thanks to these qualities, AI chatbots are viewed by proponents as the key to closing the enormous gap between the demand for and availability of mental health resources. In the United States, there are approximately 45,000 psychiatrists available to serve 333 million Americans—a shortage that researchers warn is growing. 

Beyond the U.S., the implementation of AI therapy chatbots could be transformative in developing countries where the shortage of mental health professionals is even more severe. In 2021, Yemen had only 46 psychiatrists to serve its population of 37 million. In 2022, Kenya had only 100 psychiatrists to serve its population of 54 million. This extreme scarcity speaks to a widespread public health emergency that leaves millions without access to psychological care. 

Across the Global South, innovators are turning to AI to close this gap. One example of this is the Kenyan app Xaidi. According to its developer iZola, Xaidi is a free community health assistant platform, designed specifically to support neurodivergent children and their caregivers by providing access to 24/7 interactive AI support. Xaidi and similar initiatives illustrate how AI can be tailored to meet local mental health needs in regions where professional human care is in critically short supply.    

More broadly, optimists believe AI chatbots will alleviate resource strain and support those harmed by the various barriers restricting access to traditional mental health support. 

Skeptics, however, warn that AI therapists may not just be ineffective but also dangerous. 

Due to their lack of psychological training, AI chatbots have been observed to make unfounded assumptions. For example, the Psychologist chatbot on Character.AI shares advice on treating depression when users report merely feeling sad. This kind of speculation can skew users’ perception and understanding of their mental health, potentially resulting in anxiety about a condition they may not actually have. In turn, this misunderstanding can lead users to take unnecessary action in an attempt to address their supposed disorder. 

Additionally, AI chatbots are often programmed to reinforce users’ thinking—even if it is harmful. This reinforcement is especially dangerous for users who are in a particularly vulnerable state. For example, a Florida mother is filing a civil suit against Character.AI, claiming that one of its chatbots encouraged her son to kill himself. She alleges that her 14-year-old son committed suicide after the chatbot responded to his admission of having misgivings about a plan to kill himself by saying, “That’s not a reason not to go through with it.” As illustrated, chatbots may provide inappropriate responses that inadvertently encourage users to hurt themselves. 

While AI chatbots can be an invaluable mental health resource thanks to their unrivaled availability and accessibility, it is clear that they should be approached with extreme caution. Instead of using chatbots to replace human mental health professionals, AI can be used to support their work. 

While more complex tasks like diagnosis of disorders should be reserved for trained clinicians, AI chatbots can be entrusted with simpler tasks such as reminding patients to take their medication and helping therapists take notes on patients’ behavior during sessions. That way, human therapists can dedicate more of their limited time to the tasks chatbots are not currently equipped to handle. 

While its capabilities will continue to evolve and improve, AI is ultimately no substitute for real human care. In the middle of the night, ChatGPT said all the right things and asked all the right questions, but that didn’t change the fact that our interaction felt more like a scripted performance than a genuine conversation. 

AI can simulate connection — a powerful feat in today’s world. But when it comes to care, there’s no substitute for a person who can truly empathize and offer more than just nice, yet ultimately empty, words.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post Chatbots, Comfort, and the Cost of Convenience: Can AI Replace Human Care? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

CBAM, which is set to go into effect at the start of 2026 once it is confirmed by the European Council and European Parliament, is a tariff on carbon-intensive imported goods like cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity and hydrogen. Through these efforts, the EU pushes cleaner production abroad and a decrease in carbon leakage. The agreement effectively urges governments to step up their climate efforts or risk losing competitiveness in the market, making the EU the global leader in sustainability. 

While the deal may seem like a step in the right direction, the developing world has expressed serious disapproval toward the tariff, arguing that the measure discriminates against poor nations that do not have the administrative capacity or climate regulations to comply with CBAM. For instance, India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman denounced the tariff as “unilateral and arbitrary,” acting as a “trade barrier” to the fastest-growing economies. As a result, New Delhi notified the WTO of their plans to retaliate via a retaliatory tariff. 

The EU’s largest exporters in sectors covered by CBAM include Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Egypt and Morocco. However, some of these countries, particularly the EU’s trading partners with developing economies such as Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Bhutan and Jamaica, lack the economic and geopolitical power to impose tariffs. The GDP of developing countries is expected to decline between 1.4% and 2.4% depending on the final Greenhouse gas (GHG) price. As a result, their response will likely take the form of legal disputes at the WTO. 

Furthermore, CBAM can be viewed as a message to major economies and significant GHG emitters of the EU’s commitment to safeguard its domestic priorities. Zhao, Deputy Minister of China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment, claimed China staunchly opposed any unilateral measures that increased costs. “China always respects multilateral practices,” he added. This perspective also anticipates retaliatory responses, such as potential trade conflicts. 

Researchers at the Swedish Institute for European Studies have expressed that expanding BRICS coalition could act as a counterbalance to the EU, potentially competing to shape the future global economic and trade landscape. Green protectionism can force countries to join cooperative partnerships that could reverse decarbonization efforts by encouraging less environmentally aligned economic interests. Consequently, addressing the geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges posed by the CBAM will be a crucial task for the EU. 

While impending trade disputes and wars pose a significant threat to the multilateral trade regime, the pressing urgency of the climate crisis makes it vital to not abandon the CBAM. Rather, the EU must ensure it accommodates the economic needs of developing nations to foster a less discriminatory and effective approach to global trade. 

The EU should adopt a carbon-pricing mechanism that goes beyond a direct carbon tax. It should include both explicit prices and other indirect measures that impact the cost of emitting GHGs, like taxes on fuel or cuts to fossil fuel subsidies. In short, it counts all the costs that make carbon-emitting activities more expensive, even if those costs aren’t labeled specifically as carbon fees. For many developing countries, direct carbon taxes or emissions trading systems are challenging to implement because they require significant resources, infrastructure and administrative capacity. However, virtually every country already has policies that indirectly discourage emissions, like fuel taxes or energy efficiency standards. It would also encourage a gradual transition so developing nations could build up their climate policies without facing immediate trade penalties. Reforms that reduce subsidies to fossil fuel consumption have taken place in many developing countries, such as Ghana and Sudan.

Lastly, the EU’s current CBAM doesn’t qualify as a “border carbon adjustment” according to the WTO because it violates articles II, III, XI and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). A border carbon adjustment (BCA) that includes explicit and indirect measures is compatible with WTO law because it is not a unilateral action. According to the 2015 Paris Agreement, BCA mechanisms designed to allow for more leeway in climate policy should be seen as “multilateral universalism”. Thus, policies of this nature should face less stringent scrutiny under WTO rules as the GHG pricing mechanisms being introduced have been implicitly accepted by WTO members. This is evident from their collective endorsement of international climate agreements such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact. Even nations like China are likely to be supportive.

Thus, the EU must implement a fair and bold carbon border tax now. Absent a WTO-compliant BCA, Daniel Esty, a leading expert on climate change governance, warns, “I can imagine a scenario whereby they’re challenged not once or twice, but a dozen, 15, 20, 30, 40 times within the first six months.” Such legal uncertainties could also escalate into a global trade war, threatening economic stability and international cooperation on climate action. For the EU, this moment calls for decisive action to lead by example and pave the way for a sustainable and equitable global trading system.

The post The EU CBAM Conundrum: Balancing Climate Goals with Trade Justice for Developing Countries appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international treaty designed to facilitate international cooperation in combating climate change. Originally signed in 1992, it aims to limit further increases in average global temperature by regulating nations’ greenhouse gas emissions.

Since 1995, the Convention’s signatories have annually gathered for what is known as the Conference of Parties (COP). At this conference, individual countries’ inventories of their yearly emissions are reviewed to assess the efficacy of each signatory’s measures against climate change. This data is used to evaluate the progress made towards the Convention’s overarching goal. 

Citing the “need [for]action, not more talk,” Papua New Guinea vowed to skip this year’s COP29. If PNG keeps its promise, it will become one of the first states to completely withdraw participation from a COP summit. 

However, it is far from the first body to criticize COP’s attempts to address climate change. 

Climate activists have long criticized the COP for failing repeatedly to deliver on its lofty promises to address the consequences of climate change. In its third year, the COP summit was labeled a “tragedy and a farce” by environmental protection group Greenpeace. This was in response to COP3 delegates settling on emission reduction targets far below those recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Additionally, COP has faced much censure from developing nations for allowing advanced countries to dominate policy negotiations at their expense. This is particularly evident in the decade-long struggle to secure “loss and damage” funding for developing nations significantly impacted by climate change. Though Vanuatu introduced the concept of such funds as early as 1991, developed nations were reluctant to acknowledge that they are disproportionately responsible for climate change and consequently owe reparations to those suffering its effects. As such, these funds were not mentioned in an official UNFCCC document until 2007 and not implemented until 2022. 

In particular, the Pacific Islands are a major source of COP criticism because they are one of the regions most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Thanks to warmer waters and ocean currents, sea levels rise twice as fast as the global average. Over the next thirty years, NASA predicts that sea levels around the Pacific Islands will rise by at least six inches, posing great danger to the 90% of the region’s residents who live within three miles of a coast. 

Future aside, climate change has already begun transforming life in the Pacific Islands for the worse. Rising sea levels contaminate freshwater sources, threatening local water supplies needed for drinking and agriculture. Furthermore, the ocean is acidifying and its surface temperature is increasing, prompting changes in the behavior of local marine species that endanger locals’ fishing livelihoods. These effects simultaneously enable the spread of climate-sensitive diseases and increase the threat of health risks stemming from environmental hazards like unsafe water.  

Despite their position on the frontline of the battle against climate change, the Pacific Islands have been shut out of COP negotiations. After COP28, delegates from the Pacific Islands reported that they “weren’t in the [plenary]room when this decision was gavelled.” In other words, the remaining countries finalized the terms of COP’s concluding agreement for the year without input from anyone with a stake in the region. 

As a result, the final text contains a “litany of loopholes.” For example, it reads that countries will “transition away” from fossil fuels because parties could not choose between “phase out” or “phase down.” According to Pacific climate campaigner Drue Slatter, the imprecise nature of “transition away” merely encourages a reduction in fossil fuels rather than demands it. 

This all but spells disaster for the Pacific Islands. 

As Samoan climate activist Brianna Fruean explains, “science tells us that 1.5 degrees is [the Pacific Islands’]survival line. And in order for us to make it to 1.5, we need a phase-out of fossil fuels.” However, the final wording of the COP28 agreement does not specify the extent to which fossil fuels need to be cut or establish a timeline for doing so, thus allowing nations to get away with continuing to use fossil fuels. 

Given the increasingly dire stakes and the inefficiency of COP negotiations, PNG’s withdrawal from COP29 is far from unreasonable. 

However, other leaders and climate activists from the Pacific Islands are concerned that PNG’s boycott of COP29 will undermine the region’s overall authority at the summit. Kim Allen, a climate activist from Papua New Guinea, said that the COP summit is an opportunity to amplify the voice of the Pacific Islands by presenting a united front. From this point of view, PNG’s absence could reduce the Pacific Islands’ ability to leverage its influence as a collective region, potentially diluting its role in COP29 negotiations. 

On the other hand, PNG’s withdrawal may eventually generate more effective results than the ones COP can produce. In his announcement of the boycott, Tkatchenko shared that PNG will instead pursue bilateral climate agreements with “like-minded countries” who “can do 100 times more than COP.” Focusing on bilateral agreements would reduce the number of competing demands that must be addressed, minimizing the challenges associated with writing an agreement that satisfies the almost 200 countries attending COP29. 

With those challenges out of the way, Papua New Guinea can devote more attention to creating and implementing actionable climate commitments that address climate change in a specific and timely manner. Strategically picking nations to work with also eliminates the risk of progress being hindered by nations who do not share the same dedication to mitigating the effects of climate change.   

As world leaders prepare for COP29, Papua New Guinea’s withdrawal from the summit sends a clear message that climate-vulnerable nations can no longer afford to wait for COP to deliver measurable results. More than that, it is a declaration that they are ready to chart their own course in the fight against climate change. 

As Tkatchenko said, “Papua New Guinea will no longer wait for empty words while our people suffer. We are taking control of our destiny.” 

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post Climate Credibility Crisis: Papua New Guinea Exits COP29 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In a video she posted en route to court, she stated, “I am freedom… I am the oxygen you breathe. This autocratic regime wants to stop you from breathing. This autocratic regime wants to imprison freedom.”

Seng was arbitrarily detained on Jun 14, 2022. Over two years later, Seng’s lack of release is a haunting display of how democracy is failing our very own “Lady Liberty.” 

A survivor of the Cambodian genocide, Seng emigrated to the United States at age nine and went on to receive her B.S. from Georgetown University and J.D. from the University of Michigan. She then returned to Cambodia and founded two advocacy organizations, the Cambodia Center for Justice and Reconciliation and the Center for Cambodian Civic Education. In her advocacy efforts, she became a vocal critic of the reigning Cambodian People’s Party, particularly its leader, Hun Sen, and a proponent of the opposition party. 

Seng’s civic work was highlighted by the USC Shoah Foundation, an institute dedicated to collecting testimonies from subjects of genocide. This article outlined Seng’s triumphant journey from an orphan by the Khmer Rouge to the fiery political activist, lawyer and author she is today. Attached to this article is a headshot in front of a vertically columned building, a location eerily familiar to a USC student. This image was taken in front of the Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow Center for International and Public Affairs, the same building that houses classes such as International Courts and Globalization of the Law, Leadership and Democracy and Global History of War Crimes: Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Although initially published just a paltry two months before her arrest, Theary’s photo with the backdrop of our campus now appears next to articles discussing her political suppression from news channels around the world. Seng’s continual detainment taints the walls of not only our capital but our campus, too. 

The face in that professional headshot is unrecognizable from Seng’s mugshot, where she dons a shaved head, orange prison garb and a sullen expression. During her two years in prison, numerous human rights organizations such as Freedom House and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Groups have spoken out against her arrest. The Clooney Foundation of Justice’s TrialWatch Initiative found that she was imprisoned on a lack of evidence in a marred justice procedure, resulting in an arbitrary conviction under international law. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention supports these claims, asserting that her detention violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Despite a change in leadership when Hun Sen’s son, Hun Manet, took over the prime minister role, the call for Theary Seng’s release remains ignored by the Cambodian parliament. 

These calls for release are heard not only outside her prison cell but inside it as well. In Dec 2023, Theary held a hunger strike while in prison, which ended in a stay at Phnom Penh Hospital. This hospital visit delayed an appeals court visit scheduled for later months. Her brother, Mardi Seng, reported that Theary fired her lawyers and plans to represent herself when the appeal eventually occurs. 

Even President Biden has echoed the ubiquitous call for justice. When visiting Cambodia in Nov 2022, five months after Seng’s detainment, Biden called for the release of activists detained on politically motivated charges, explicitly naming Theary Seng. However, simply calling on Seng’s release is a shallow and cowardly display of Biden’s presidential powers. 

The Robert Levison Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act, signed into law in Dec 2020, establishes various procedures and entities to address the wrongful detainment of US citizens abroad. If the Department of State designates Seng as “unlawfully detained” under this act, her case will be transferred to the Office of Special Presidential Envoy on Hostage Affairs. This case transfer allows for additional resources and expertise, ensuring her case receives the attention it deserves. The bi-partisan Levinson Act is bolstered by Executive Order 14078, which expands the tools available to deter and reprimand those responsible for the detainment of US citizens abroad. Issued by President Biden a month after Seng’s arrest, this order declared hostage-taking a national emergency and provided a pathway to impose sanctions on hostage-takers.

Biden’s unwillingness to invoke the Levinson Act reflects a larger loosening of US influence on Cambodian Politics as China’s power expands south. The United States adopted the Cambodian Democracy Act in 2021, which allowed for the sanctioning of individuals who have undermined democracy. This act, coupled with an arms embargo, caused a rapid deterioration of US-Cambodia relations, providing ample opportunity for China to assert dominance. China recently moored its naval fleet at Cambodia’s Ream Naval base, representing China’s first maritime post in the Indo-Pacific. Chinese funds built this base, which was met with concern by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. As democratic influence in the nation withers away, so does hope for Theary Seng’s release. 

Infuriatingly, Seng’s imprisonment is not an idiosyncrasy. Despite protections such as the Levinson Act and Executive Order 14078, the State Department has routinely abandoned foreign citizens abroad. The 2023 Hostage report by the James Foley Foundation found that 59 US nationals are held captive in foreign countries, 90% of whom are wrongful detainees. The instituted protections don’t mean anything if they are not implemented to serve those immediately affected. 

US democracy is rooted in the enshrined freedoms put forth in the First Amendment of the Constitution, securing freedom of speech and freedom of petition. Democracy in Cambodia echoes those same values, with Article 41 of the Cambodian Constitution stating, “Khmer citizens shall have freedom of expression of their ideas.” Seng’s arbitrary detainment for expression of her belief reflects a blatant disregard for the very values that democracy stands on. 

Cambodian democracy neglected Seng with imprisonment and a botched trial. But US democracy is a violent bystander in her prosecution, abandoning not only her but a whole nation desperate for hope and equality. 

Seng’s case is a vile example of the detrimental encroachment on civil liberties, both domestically and to citizens abroad. Despite the damaging history of the US presence in the nation, The United States does not deserve the privilege to step back and disengage from Cambodia. They must act on the human rights violations and collaborate with advocates, such as Seng, to pave the way for a more equal and just Cambodia.

The post Democracy is Failing Theary Seng appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

“Hi! This is Uzi Garcia,” the caller said. 

I was taken aback first by the caller’s distinctively young voice and then by their off-putting tone. As an intern on Capitol Hill, I routinely take calls from constituents and knew there was something different about this caller. Although I could tell there was something off about his voice, I could not pinpoint exactly what was wrong.

Then I heard him say, “I am a fourth grader at Robb Elementary School in Texas. Or at least I was until a man with an AR-15 killed 18 of my classmates, two teachers and me.” 

In February 2024, the parents of 6 victims of gun violence initiated “Shotline,” a campaign using artificial intelligence to recreate their children’s voices in calls to Congress. With the click of a button, users can send one of the six AI-generated calls to a congressional office of their choice. All calls start the same: the AI voice introduces themselves, explains their personality, describes the details of their death and then calls for stricter gun laws that may have prevented their deaths. As of Oct 28, 2024, 170,547 calls have been submitted to Congress. 

According to an interview with one of the six victims’ parents, the process for obtaining life-like audio of their deceased children was relatively easy. All it took was uploading one short audio clip of their children’s voices to the platform, Eleven Labs, an AI voice generator that supports 29 languages and accents. From there, parents typed in their messages and an AI-generated version of their child repeated it back to them. While the voices sound similar to the real kids’ voices, there is something distinctly unsettling about hearing a dead person talk to you — especially a child who was murdered in such a horrific manner. 

Extreme and powerful gun-violence advocacy campaigns are not uncommon — people still remember the “Evan” TV ad where seemingly ordinary scenes in a school setting subtly revealed signs of potential violence among students. However, Shotline crosses a new threshold as one of the first campaigns to use artificial intelligence in this way. Speaking as someone who listened to these calls and heard the voices’ disturbing and inhuman cadences, the impact of their messages cannot be understated. 

This intensity and shock have sparked debate on the use of artificial intelligence, especially to replicate those who have died. Proponents of the campaign say that advocating to Congress in conventional ways has gone nowhere. The father of Joaquin Oliver, a 17-year-old victim of the Majorie Stoneman Douglass High shooting, believes that if lawmakers won’t listen to him, maybe hearing from his son will have an impact. In his opinion, the campaign is supposed to disturb people. “Like, if you find this uncomfortable, … I think that you don’t know what uncomfortable means. I can tell you about feeling uncomfortable. When they let you know that your son, your loved one, was shot and you won’t be able to see him anymore.” 

The general public has had mixed views of the situation as well. In the comment section of one of Shotline’s posts, one user says, “What if everybody did this? It will break avenues to contact representatives when everyone does this.” Others see the Shotline project as exploiting the dead. “What you’re doing is disgusting and shameful. Putting words in dead people’s mouths, literally in their voices. Exploitation.” 

Other people are praising Shotline’s leaders for their courage and savvy in using this new tool to spur controversy and dialogue. One proponent states, “This is an amazing tool, and I’m so proud to have seen you guys here in Tulsa. You are doing great things in the name of love.” 

Along with the ethical debates, another possible ramification that is widely overlooked involves how this type of advocacy could change how congressional offices take calls. Currently, there are thousands of Congressional staff fielding constituent messages. While how many calls an office receives per day can change, my personal experience leads me to believe that offices can get up to hundreds of calls a day. Additionally, messages are only taken from real-life constituents; automated messages are rare and ignored. If AI-generated calls to Congress become more prevalent and the technology improves so that voices are indistinguishable from reality, how will Congressional staff be able to tell the difference? Petitioning your representatives is integral to political engagement, but these calls have the potential to complicate constituent engagement and representation.

AI-driven advocacy campaigns such as Shotline are a fascinating intersection of technology, ethics and activism. The chilling effect of hearing the simulated voices of deceased victims pleading for legislative action not only challenges conventional advocacy tactics but also calls into question the broader implications of AI in influencing public discourse and policymaking. As technology continues to advance, the ethical considerations surrounding its use in all areas of life will become increasingly complex. As we grapple with these dilemmas, it becomes imperative to navigate the intersection of technology and activism with sensitivity, transparency and a steadfast commitment to ethical principles.

The post AI is Resurrecting School Shooting Victims in Calls to Congress appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Over 9.4 million visitors came to Hawaiʻi in 2023, spending $20.78 billion and generating $2.41 billion in tax revenue. These high fiscal numbers keep Hawaiʻi reliant on tourists, but the high visitor numbers also put a strain on the islands. 

The sheer number of people and bodies that pass through the islands every year inevitably degrades the natural resources, from the sunscreen-poisoned reefs to the over-trampled and not-so-secret hiking trails. Even indirectly, the prevalence of tourists jetting around the world does nothing to curb the effects of climate change, a phenomenon that has been seen to disproportionately impact small island communities. Factors like sea level rise, ocean acidification and pollution all impact Hawaiʻi and its biggest commodity: its beautiful natural resources. Warming oceans and ocean acidification have damaged coral reefs and threatened other marine ecosystems, and sea level rise threatens coastal communities and resorts along the shore. 

Another impact of climate change is Hawaiʻi seeing markedly less precipitation in recent years, affecting native ecosystems and reducing freshwater availability for residents. It also leaves many areas more prone to wildfires. In Aug 2023, a massive fire swept through Lahaina, Maui, destroying the town and killing 100 people. It is projected to cost about $6 billion to repair, with many businesses and residences completely flattened. 

In an effort to mitigate these impacts, the state of Hawaiʻi is looking for ways to address the damaging environmental impact of tourism. They need to set up a fund for restoration and mitigation projects to make their natural resources sustainable. The state government has proposed a tourism tax, which many other tourism-based economies have adopted before. 

If the climate tax were implemented, each visitor would need to pay a $25 fee to the islands, and it would go towards the protection of Hawaiʻi’s natural beauty and biodiversity from climate change. In particular, it could be used for wildfire and flood prevention, coral reef restoration, green infrastructure, land management and emergency supplies. Hawaiian Governor Josh Green estimates the tax could bring about $68 million per year to the islands.

In 2023, the legislature considered a $50 green fee for visitors to access state parks and beaches, but the measure did not pass. Legislators are hoping this one will be more successful. Other possibilities are year-long passes for popular hiking trails and parks or increasing the state hotel tax, which is already among the highest in the country. 

In a survey of hundreds of tourists to Hawaiʻi, four of ten said they would be willing to pay 10% more at restaurants to make sure local suppliers would profit more than the food supply chain. They would pay more during their stay to support Hawaiian people and Hawaiian culture. This shows a certain public willingness to pay for environmental preservation. Even if they don’t love the cause, most tourists to Hawaiʻi would likely pay an extra $25 to be able to spend their vacations there. The concern would be putting additional strain on a recovering tourism sector. However, tourist numbers have nearly rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, with numbers now at 97% of what they were in 2019.

The tourism industry is a double-edged sword for Hawaiʻi and other similar economies. On the one hand, tourism degrades resources and limits local supply for residents. For example, in 2022, the government limited the water accessible to residents on West Maui due to severe drought and a depletion of water supplies. The catch, though, was that no such sanctions were placed on the tourism sector, which uses up about 45% of Hawaiʻi’s water. 

On the other hand, however, Hawaiʻi’s economy is so heavily based on tourism that a decrease in tourism and revenue would severely affect the economic well-being of residents. About a quarter of Hawaiʻi’s GDP comes from the tourism industry, supplying about 216,000 jobs in the state. Approximately 70% of every dollar is generated directly or indirectly from the tourism industry. 

Thus, when an event like the COVID-19 pandemic or the Lahaina wildfires happens, the decrease in tourism has mixed effects on residents. In the case of the pandemic, many locals were relieved to see beaches and hiking trails finally empty again, ecosystems allowed to bounce back from overuse. The other side of the coin, though, was an economic depression for many who depended on tourism for their incomes. 

Similarly with the Lahaina wildfires, immediately after the event tourists were told to stay away; locals needed time to rebuild, process and grieve. Two months in, though, residents were losing about $9 million per day from a lack of tourists. The 8,000 people who used to arrive on Maui per day had fallen to 2,000. Unemployment skyrocketed, and without the reinstitution of tourists, hardships could get even worse for the people in the area. However, at the same time, when the area reopened for visitors, 10,000 people signed a petition for it to remain closed. They still were not back on their feet after the fires and were not prepared to deal with foreign visitors. There was no good solution. 

Another downside of tourism in the islands is the gentrification. The rising costs of food and housing driven by tourism put a strain on residents. As a result, many locals struggle financially for food and housing and can end up on the street while mega-mansions owned by foreign investors sit empty. 

Cultural degradation from tourism is also an issue, in which many Native Hawaiians feel their culture is commoditized by foreigners and the tourism industry, such as with their language or cultural practices like hula. 

Evidently, tourism has wide ripple effects on many aspects of life on the islands. It’s important to put money towards revitalizing natural beauty and continuing to support the tourism industry, but putting money from tourists toward mitigating these other consequences should be considered in the future. Funneling money back into the pockets of locals for food, housing or business could be a measure worth considering down the line. 

Allocating part of the tourism tax revenue to native Hawaiians is beneficial to the revitalization of Hawaiian culture. The Hawaiʻi Tourism Authority has created programs in the past that put tourism money toward cultural revitalization initiatives, but a formal system should be set up to continue this work of funneling tourist dollars toward the native people. 

Overall, Hawaiʻi’s proposed tourism tax is a move toward mitigating the consequences of heavy tourism on the natural environment. However, other consequences of tourism also call for awareness. This includes the impacts on housing prices and cultural degradation. Providing funds for these causes is vital to the future of Hawaii.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post Hawaiʻi’s Tourism Tax for Climate Change – And Where It Should Go Next appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As of late February, Palestinian deaths surpassed 30,000 and the devastation has only worsened as the war progresses. Coming from a generation that has never known a world with a weak Israel, it seems illogical and unfathomable to continue supporting Israel as the death tolls increase. Despite protests, pressure from leftist democratic colleagues and international efforts advocating for more severe policies toward Israel, President Biden has barely budged on his stance. Furthermore, all of his statements toward Israel have come in the form of a written statement, phone calls or a statement read by a member of his staff. The only exception was during his State of the Union address where he stated, “Israel also has a fundamental responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Gaza.” However, many are still pushing Biden to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and to stop sending military aid to Israel. In the eyes of many young democratic voters, President Biden is not doing nearly enough to stop Israel, and it’s difficult to understand why. 

While ending military aid to Israel and insisting on a permanent ceasefire may seem like a no-brainer for my generation, the reality is much more nuanced. Joe Biden’s stance toward Israel is not necessarily out of a lack of compassion or cowardice, but pure history and politics. Crediting his pro-Israel perspective to his father, Biden recalls that his father emphasized the undeniable justice of establishing Israel as a Jewish homeland in 1948 following the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. His historic view of Israel is as a small country fighting for democracy in a region of instability, not the powerful, right-leaning and domineering country many people my age see today. Throughout his Senate career Biden also received $5 million from pro-Israeli groups, the chamber’s biggest recipient in history. This should not be surprising nor, arguably, worrying. For most of American history since the end of WWII, support for Israel has persisted, especially for democrats. Due to the historical context surrounding Biden’s tenure in the Senate, this is not abnormal. The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state in 1949 and the country has been, and remains, America’s greatest ally in the Middle East and is praised as a symbol of democracy in the region. 

However, it is not 1949 anymore, and the gravity of the situation is becoming increasingly apparent. If Joe Biden does not reassess his pattern of nonconfrontation and passive diplomacy with Netanyahu, it may be too late to help the situation in Gaza and protect his base. President Biden won Michigan in the 2020 election but the results of the February Michigan primary, with a substantial number of undecided votes, suggest that his unwavering support for Israel could potentially be a deciding factor against him in a close general election. Key swing states like Michigan and young voters won Biden the 2020 election, but his support for Israel may jeopardize his 2024 chances, as young voters are less likely to vote in 2024 than in 2020. With such a close race, Biden cannot afford a low young voter turnout. 

That all being said, there is also the very real possibility that if President Biden takes back his support for Israel, Republicans may be quick to portray the president as anti-Israel. Republicans on the House Armed Service Committee have criticized initiatives to direct more aid into the region. Missouri Congressman Mark Alford said, “90 percent of [humanitarian]funding” ends up in the hands of Hamas. While the social media and political circles of my peers and I are skewed in favor of Palestinians, it can be easy to forget that the general public lacks a consensus on the level of support the United States should provide to Israel. Joe Biden is not the only one whose historical and personal experience with Israel deeply influences their political views. Older generations tend to view Israel as a refuge for the Jews after the painful, visceral memories of the Holocaust. One report shows that less than half (48%) of Gen Z and millennials believe the United States should publicly voice support of Israel compared with 63% of Gen Xers and 83% of baby boomers. 30 years ago, support for Israel was more associated with Democrats than Republicans. Today, many democratic Gen Z voters find it very difficult to wrap their heads around a world that sees Israel’s actions as justified and fair. Recognizing these generational divides is essential for navigating the broader discourse surrounding Israeli-Palestinian relations.

It is also valuable for my age group to understand the historical relevance of congressional and presidential support for Israel. There has never been a U.S. president to actively oppose Israel. Throughout Joe Biden’s long career, it has never been an option to withdraw support for Israel. It is also important to note that Biden’s stance is not unique nor should it be surprising: the mainstream political discourse has always skewed in Israel’s favor. As Jimmy Carter once put it, “It’s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace.” In summary, it is unrealistic to expect Joe Biden and other politicians to completely shift their worldview that has been shaped over decades of precedent. 

This does not mean that the American people should wait around for Joe Biden to change his mind while thousands of Palestinians die every day. The world is not the same as it was 80 years ago and neither are international dynamics. While these historical precedents should not be ignored, there needs to be some acknowledgment of the Israeli government’s role in Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. In a conflict that is so rooted in history, it is imperative to keep in mind the long history that the president and the country have had with Israel if there is any hope of ending the suffering, death and destruction in Gaza.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post The Discussion on Biden’s Support for Israel Needs More Nuance appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The development of the Sulli Deals app occurred during a period of rising violence against Muslims in India, with religious-based hate crimes having increased by 30% and Muslims being the primary target in more than 78% of these attacks.

Mehvish’s experience, although startling, is not uncommon. She was only one of 83 women displayed on the website.

Mehvish serves as a stark reminder of the deep-seated discrimination and violence that the Muslim community in India is forced to face, especially when discussing contentious issues like the CAA.

Passed in December 2019, the Citizenship Amendment Act provides a pathway to Indian citizenship for illegal immigrants from six specified minority communities. Namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians, who entered from neighboring countries prior to 2014.

While individuals labeled as illegal by the National Register of Citizens, who identify as one of the six aforementioned minorities, are granted protections and a pathway to regain Indian citizenship under this law, Muslims are not afforded the same opportunity.
The widely criticized Citizenship Amendment Act was operationalized on Mar 11 of this year following an announcement by the Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah, regarding the launch of the citizenship application and introduction of new rules.
Experts agree that the law is discriminatory and ill-willed. Testifying at a hearing convened by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Ashutosh Varshney, an expert on ethnic and religious conflict, explained the harmful effects of the CAA.

“If India’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is implemented, it would render a large number of Indian Muslims stateless,” Varshney said. “This makes the minority community [Muslims] highly vulnerable to oppression and discrimination in the future.”

In the wake of the amendment’s adoption, large-scale protests erupted across the cultural capital of Kolkata, India, as countless individuals flooded the streets to express their opposition.

“As a Muslim, I realize that we don’t have the option of being non-political [in India],” Mehvish said. “We live in a constant state of fear for ourselves and our families so there is no choice. ”

Noor Mehvish, serving as a beacon of courage and conviction, played a pivotal role in orchestrating demonstrations in the Muslim ghettos of Park Circus and Mataib. For 65 consecutive evenings, she and her 60-year-old mother protested, alongside thousands of others, in the biting cold of Kolkata’s winter.

“We have never seen any moment like this across India, where women are actively participating and involving themselves,” says Mehvish.

The memory still lingers, tugging at Noor Mehvish’s heartstrings. Hundreds of women, who had never before left the confines of their homes, took to the streets of Kolkata. Driven by years of mounting frustration and pervasive fear, they held hands and chanted political slogans until their throats were sore.

“It was a very historical moment,” said Mohammad Reyaz, head of Journalism and Mass Communication at Aliah University. “This was the first time after the Independence movement that Muslims, in particular, were mobilizing nationwide and rising to such a massive level for civic rights”.

Noor Mehvish, though she had never anticipated the integral role she would come to play in the movement, was no stranger to advocacy, having been born into a family of revered freedom fighters in India.

“My grandmother was very involved in the Independence Movement, ” Mehvish said. “She lost her brother, sister-in-law and their three kids then. My family has already seen and made a lot of sacrifices for civic rights in India and we continue to. ”

Noor grew up with her grandmother telling her stories about the challenges the Muslim community faced during the movement and the fear and trauma they had to endure. As she grew older, Noor came to realize that these stories were not just relics of a bygone era, but still a reality for many, including herself.

Noor carries with her memories of numerous harrowing experiences, being at the mercy of violent mobs who would question her nationality and denigrate her faith.

“If a person like me, whose family has contributed to the freedom movement and has lost people in [the fight for]partition rights, is facing discrimination, what is the average Muslim facing?” she cried.

The plight of Muslims in India is worsening at an alarming rate. Not only in West Bengal but in states governed by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, by which Muslims are constantly questioned about their Indian identity and belonging.

“Our homes are being destroyed, Muslim students are being imprisoned, individuals [are]being singled out for wearing a hijab. A Muslim man was killed last week for eating beef. While people are being killed and lynched, they scream about secularism and their religious rights” Mehvish says while wiping tears. “But what about our rights?”

The future for Muslims in India is unclear. With Modi’s looming re-election this year, the prospect of what lies ahead remains murky and unsettling. However, despite the challenges ahead, Noor Mehvish remains steadfast in her commitment to protecting her community.

“Since childhood, I always wished to become a doctor. But because of this, I’ve decided to practice law,” explains Mehvish. Amidst uncertainty, Noor Mehvish’s unwavering dedication stands as a beacon of hope for the Muslim community in India and an inspiration for others to follow suit.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post “I Was Auctioned off by Hindu Nationalists”: The Fate of a Prominent Muslim Activist 4 Years After the Anti-CAA Protests appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.